Is the world flat? Dunno...

A shock report at Oxford University accuses the evangelical ‘private halls’ of not being wide enough in their theology to give undergraduates a proper liberal education. For detail and discussion I refer you  across to Ruth Gledhill’s comprehensive blog on the subject in Articles of Faith.
      

But if you want to see where a full-on evangelical/creationist rejection of basic  science can lead if you carry on down that illiberal road, try this Youtube video of a US talk show. The co-host admits she doesn’t know whether the earth is flat or not. "I never thought about it Whoopi - i’ve thought about how i’m gonna feed my child, take care of my family....”.

I do not think this mindset would be socailly acceptable on TV if it were not for the Creationist extremes in the US which reject other facts such as evolution.  It’s enough to make Dawkinses of us all...

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

It's not that we reject evolution, Libby, it's simply neither proven nor disproven. Many years ago, when I was studying A-Level biology in a Catholic grammar school, we were taught to keep an open mind about this subject, for precisely that reason. If evolution has occurred, then it must have taken place in a natural environment and not in a laboratory. It must therefore be demonstrated to have occurred by a study of the habitat, and not by experiments in a lab. So far no one has observed a change from one species into another.

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith is wrong: evolution has been proven true far beyond any reason-based doubt (if not, sadly, beyond faith-based doubt). And speciation (the emergence of new species) has been observed dozens of times in the wild.

[Julia from Illinois]

In my university level zoology class in a Catholic University in 1962, the professor spent the first day talking about how the wonders of nature continues to fill him with amazement and awe, re-inforcing his belief in God. He ended that first lecture by saying that now we were going to put those thoughts aside in order to examine for the rest of the semester God's creatures from with a scientific lens.

I'll never forget that. The course was full of DNA, classifications, biochemistry and the evolution of species. But that first lecture set the stage for seeing it all as God's work although He was never mentioned again.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Coel is wrong: evolution has not been proved true, notwithstanding his wishful thinking on this matter. What he calls speciation has been observed in the wild, but it is not the 'emergence' of new forms of life so much as the discovery of hitherto unknown species, particularly in the ocean's depths.
If evolution has occurred, then it must be a natural characteristic of all forms of life - including Homo sapiens. When a human mother
gives birth to the young of a superhuman species, I will believe
in evolution. Until then, nothing doing.

[Coel]

Dear naive Geoffrey, if "a human mother gives birth to the young of a superhuman species" it would be the time to STOP believing in evolution, since evolution says that such a thing would not happen!

Human evolution is the accumulation of little changes over generations; at no point is a child a seperate species from its parents; sufficient difference to call something a seperate species only accumulates over many generations.

In the same way, in the progression from the Old English of Beowulf to modern English, at no point was an English-speaking child speaking a different language to the English of its parents. But the small changes in each generation accumulate and the end results are mutually incomprehsiible.

Your stance above is as naive as saying "I will only believe that modern English descended from the language of Beowulf if I find a playground of English-speaking kids whose language is as different from their parents' speech as their parents' speech is from Beowulf; until then, nothing doing".

And no, by evidence of speciation I did not mean merely the discovery of hitherto unknown species, I meant the documented emergence of brand new species, observed in the wild. Cover your eyes and shout "no, no, no" to the evidence if you wish, Geoffery, but it is true! Google the talk.origins speciation FAQ for starters.

[Geoffrey Smith]

I wish you weren't so melodramatic, Mr Coel. It would make for a much more intelligent debate if you could stick to the thread. There is not the remotest relevance between the theory of evolution and the development of language. Only humans have the capability of speech; the lower species 'evolved' without it.
(1)"Sufficient difference to call something a separate species only accumulates over many generations".
(2)"The emergence of new species HAS BEEN OBSERVED DOZENS OF TIMES IN THE WILD".
When you learn not to contradict yourself in such a ridiculous manner, Mr Coel, I will be prepared to discuss this subject with you further. In the meantime, study a little logic - you will find that much more useful than evolution.

[Coel]

Geoffery, there really is no contradiction! My remark that you label 1 was quite clearly in a sentence about "human evolution". The remark 2 was referring to plants and insects, where speciation can occur via processes such as polyploidization much faster than in humans (and further the generation time can be vastly shorter). Didn't you read the talk.origins speciation faq I cited for you?

Second, the comparison with language evolution was to illustrate your utter confusion about gradual processes and timescales. Your stance "show my a human mother giving birth to a superhuman child or I won't believe in evolution" is as farcical as "grow me a full-sized oak from an acorn in one hour flat, or I'll refuse to believe that oak trees come from acorns".

Now Geoffery, the _expectation_ from evolutionary theory is that evolutionary change of long-lived mammals such as humans should occur on long timescales. And sure enough, the fossil record documents our evolution over a few million years from Australopithecines (bipedal, chimp-like creatures with chimp-sized brains) through Homo habilis, H. erectus (gradually increasing brain size) to H. heidelbergensis and on to us. Why, just this week's Nature reports new evidence for fossils neatly intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus.

And, awww, please don't stop discussing this with me, I like exposing the ignorance of creationists! Absolutely everything you have said on this thread is wrong!

[Geoffrey Smith]

Don't misunderstand me, Mr Coel. I am neither an evolutionist nor a creationist, if by creationism you mean in accordance with the account written in Genesis. This is where you are arguing without purpose. No Christian is bound to believe that the account in Genesis is a natural sequence of events summed up in the term 'evolution' or 'creation'. It was never meant to be. It was written to teach the Israelites that God made the world and every thing in it. He may have done this by a process of evolution, or He may not. It has never been proved one way or the other, regardless of your fanciful thinking on the matter. Perhaps in God's good time He will reveal to us His modus operandi, but, in lieu of that, I shall keep an open mind about it, unfettered by any atheistic bias.

[jim, sydney]

There is a wealth of observed data from scientific study, including paleontology and fossil records, comparative macroscopic biology, comparative physiology and biochemistry, from phylogenetics, molecular biology and DNA sequencing analysis, geological studies, you name it, to make the theory of evolution one of the most robust and well supported scientific theories in existence.
That evolution theory is itself "evolving" is quite true, and no-one pretends to have all the explanations and answers. It is amazing that those so skeptical of it rarely avail themselves of the chance to immerse themselves in that knowledge, despite the weight of evidence and literature being widely available and accessible for the average person of average intelligence to explore in depth.
These same religious "science skeptics" are in contrast accepting of totally unsupportable fables like a virgin birth, people rising from the dead and ascending into an invisible heaven, angels, visitations by spirits or the dead, claims of divine revelation by self-proclaimed prophets, and other bizarre events, and more myths and magic than are found in Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter combined, when the evidence for such happenings is pathetic and lacking in credibility. It shows how easily people can fool themselves when they want to be fooled, and are already biased in favour of heavenly magic and an eternal existence after death.

Yes Geoffrey, you keep an open mind on this Evolution/Creationism business.
I am teaching my daughters to keep an open mind on everything, good/evil, cleanliness/filth, broccolli/Coca Cola, education/ignorance.
You don't have to believe in Evolution, the rest of the world does.

[Carl]

"When a human mother
gives birth to the young of a superhuman species, I will believe
in evolution. Until then, nothing doing." - Geoffrey Smith

OK, so you won't believe in evolution because you haven't observed it happening, but human asexual reproduction, the dead rising back to life, walking on water, the healing of leprosy without medical knowledge and fortune telling are all fine? What strange criteria for belief you have, Mr Smith.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Don't confuse religious actuality with science fiction, Mr Carl!
Fortune telling is condemned by the Catholic Church, and is one criterion I totally reject.

[Coel]

By calling you a "creationist" Geoffrey, I wasn't implying that you were a Biblical literalist, but that you hold to a faith-based rejection of evolutionary science.

Your statement "When a human mother gives birth to the young of a superhuman species, I will believe in evolution. Until then, nothing doing" just reeks of that, since it shows that you have absolutely no understanding of evolution (what timescale do you _expect_ human evolution to occur on? "One generation" is the wrong answer! Just as "one hour" is the wrong answer to "how long does it take an acorn to grow into a full-sized oak?").

And overall evolution is supported by such overwhelmingly vast amounts of evidence that it has been proven true way beyond any reasonable doubt -- as is obvious to anyone neither totally ignorant of modern science, nor blinkered by their faith.

[Carl]

"Don't confuse religious actuality with science fiction, Mr Carl!
Fortune telling is condemned by the Catholic Church, and is one criterion I totally reject." - Geoffrey Smith

So you'd be rejecting Revelation then? Or Isiah? Or any other numerous acts of fortune telling in the Bible (oh, wait, it's different in the Bible isn't it, fortune-telling gets called 'prophecy')

And as for 'religious actuality': you have nothing to go on but an old and heavily edited book, a large amount of which is just a rehash of myths of older religions and cultures (the Epic of Gilgamesh, anyone?). Quite how you think that this counts as any kind of 'evidence' astounds me, especially when you consider that demonstrable and observable changes in a species over time leave you with 'nothing doing'. Amazing, really.

[Mark Holgate]

The discussion above seems to typify the argument between creationists and evolutionists; that one must be right to the exclusion of the other. To my mind there is insufficient scientific proof on either side to categorically say one or the other is right. Both require equal levels of faith. The parsity of fossil record requires any observant of evolutionary ideas to have just as much faith as the creationist.

Both ideas believe that from nothing, something transformed into life and that has progressed to our present situation, whether that be over 6 days or over millenia. You disagree on the purpose, not the process.

It is a shame that so much energy is expended on trying to force the other side to comply with your own world view, when in reality you are probably both wrong!

[Tony Francis]

St. Thomas Aquinas writes (about 1260 AD) that the world is round on the first page of Summa Theologia. Furthermore, quoting St. John Chrysostom, he notes that Moses was addressing an "ignorant people who could only think in terms of material things." The implication is that the full truth of things could not be expressed to them, since they could not comprehend them at that time. (Summa Theologia I, Q67, Art. 4) Aquinas was an advocate of Aristotle, who, in turn, was an expounder of, among other things, evolution. So it is a mistake to conclude that religion and science (in particular, the science of evolution) are incompatible. Just the opposite.

[ESB]

Ms. Libby Perves (the author):

Calling someone a "Dawkins" would imply that that person has the intellect and education that most people can only dream about. Therefore, not only is your "analogy" flawed, it is so grotesque as to be scary.

[Andrew]

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1.

"I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well." Psalm 139:14

One has to decide for himself whether evolution is true or not. It all depends on who you talk to. There are plenty of places that give great and credible evidence against some of evolution's main arguments. For example, there is a huge difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Just look around, though. Evolution takes much more faith than Christianity does. What I can tell you is, Jesus Christ has given me hope the day that he died on the Cross to save me from my sins. Jesus Christ gives a purpose and a hope to life that no evolutionist or atheist could ever have while he holds that belief. I thank Him and love Him for that. I am a 16 year old American, and I am not a brainwashed product of the religious right. I am only a sinner saved by grace who has placed his life in the hands of the Almighty God. I deserve eternal life no more than the next person.

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Ephesians 2:8,9

Humbly,

Andrew

[jim, sydney]

"One has to decide for himself whether evolution is true or not. It all depends on who you talk to." Yes, it depend upon whether you have read or talked to the best experts and minds over the past 100 plus years who have explored the theory in depth, and understand it, or give equal weight to superficial opinions by those who have done little more than offer kindergarten level "evidence" after looking out the window and coming to their unbalanced, trite conclusion.

[Brett]

Andrew, any chance that you "found" Jesus by your parents taking you to church on a regular basis? Or possibly some other form of indoctrination / brain washing? If you lived in the remote jungles of New Guinea no doubt you'd believe in the lizard God. Athiests don't attempt to tell religious people how to run their lives, we are simply bemused how otherwise intelligent people can believe in a "Santa Claus". It would be nice if religious people returned the favour and stopped imposing their (very dodgy) morals on the rest of us. Believe in what you will, or believe in nothing - either way, keep it to yourself.

[athens]

Good day to you all, from Greece. I'm amazed with you Americans. So many things that you have accomplised in many different fields except one. Philosophy of life and existence. Too many bad things are happening to our world and you people are fighting for God's sake! please think about that: religions are the opiun of the masses.

[Coel]

Note, reading the post by Andrew, how the "evolution hasn't been proved" line always comes from the religious.

Since their rejection of evolution is faith-based, rather than evidence based, it is almost impossible to reason with them. As has been said "you can't reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned into".

[Stephen Morris]

It makes no sense to compare "is the earth flat?" with "did we evolve?".

In the first case, this is a scientific question and we can do experiments that quite clearly show that it the earth isn't flat. Case closed.

In the second case, there are no experiments we can do and it is a matter of drawing inferences from secondary sources, such as the fossil record and DNA sequences. The conclusion you arrive at depends as much on your world-view as on the evidence. Hence it isn't really a scientific question, and Dawkins et al are disingenuous in claiming that it is.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"So you'd be rejecting Revelation then? Or Isiah(sic)? Or any other numerous acts of fortune-telling in the Bible (Oh, wait, it's different in the Bible, isn't it, fortune-telling gets called prophecy)">
- Carl, 24 SEP 2007, 11:31:32

Fortune: Chance or luck as a power in human affairs.
Prophecy: Foretelling of future events.
Since you don't know the difference between fortune-telling and prophecy, Mr Carl, if you let Libby have your full name and address, I'll buy you a copy of the O.E.D.
Either that or remedial lessons in English at a college of your choice.

[Jon]

Mark Holgate: "Both require equal levels of faith"? I think you'll find that there is an (almost) overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolutionary theory, and despite over two thousand years of searching not one shred of verifiable evidence to support a religious interpretation. A religious explanation is based entirely on faith.

It should also be pointed out that if and when parts of the theory of evolution are found to be incorrect, the theory will be corrected to reflect the new knowledge. This is in direct contrast to religious views, where those of faith have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the real world even when faced with absolute proof.

Furthermore, if someone's opinion derives solely from their religion, they should just shut up. Someone else has a different but equally valid religion that disagrees, and there is no way of preferring one over the other.

Evolution is just a theory. But until such time as any evidence becomes available, religion is just a story.