Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Posted Jun 12th 2008 4:35AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Atheism
When Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion, philosopher Michael Ruse was quoted as saying that the book "makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." What especially galls
I've been reading
But doesn't evolution contradict a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis? Yes, but
By contrast,
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 115)
61. Ah PerVerted rears his ugly head yet again. Until you have proof of your god everything else you write is not just pointless but worthless PerVerted.
Peter at 4:37PM on Jun 12th 2008
62. "Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true, inspiring, remarkable and that it unites a whole lot of phenomena under a single heading." - Richard Dawkins
Peter at 4:41PM on Jun 12th 2008
63. So that I do care about... am curious about... is why are you folks all up in arms about this?
Somber at 4:32PM on Jun 12th 2008
I believe people get attached to their ideas, and believe their ideas are part of themselves . Attack my idea you attack me type thinking.
Jerry Brown at 4:43PM on Jun 12th 2008
64. Peter: Until you have proof of your god everything else you write is not just pointless but worthless PerVerted
PV: I just proved your claim to be false. You said "science is not compatible with religion," and I showed that science was heavily developed by religionists. So, obviously, you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
preteristvision at 4:47PM on Jun 12th 2008
65. PV: Many of Darwin's ideas are still in the realm of unproven theory, and Darwin was a Theist anyway.
xxx
again, darwin has no more to do with cladistics and molecular genetics than the inventor of the abacus has to do with nuclear engineering.
On top of that, you're completely wrong. One doesn't study the math, physics, chemistry and molecular genetics necessary to comment intelligently on evolution in preacher school.
The door is long closed on religious challenges to evolution, same as on a flat earth. It's been observable for going on thirty years.
What darwin thought in 1859 is no more relevant than what you try to cling to. When it comes to science you have no relevance as your lack of awareness of scientific progress is clear from your confusion regarding 21st century evolutionary theory.
You have nothing to offer and virtually everything to learn. You could ask questions here if you're humble and sincere, but otherwise, you're just a nuisance. This is not a subject suitable for airing your apprehension and superstition, but with an open mind you could in fact learn something. I doubt you will, however.
If you have some kind of challenge to cladistics, bring it up and your cites and publications. Otherwise your comments are babble.
Clif Kuplen at 4:46PM on Jun 12th 2008
66. DoubleD, you must have been rushed to create this uninspired uninsightful blog topic. Keep up the bland work.
JefFlyingV at 4:46PM on Jun 12th 2008
67. Leaving the culture that you grew up with can be difficult. It's no surprise that many otherwise rational people would continue to believe nonsense as for them to denounce it would mean tremendous consequences in their lives: loss of family members, loss of loved ones, social stigma, and in some societies even torture and death. These are power incentives to retain the perception within others that one is a believer.
I however refuse to take that path. I recommend it for any scientist who expects to be taken seriously. Belief or faith in god can be used to undermine the quality of a scientists work. It's just a good thing that the scientific method requires a grueling peer review process as well as validation by objective tests! This tends to eliminate any god bias of scientists - something that the creationists don't like.
It's quite funny that Mother Teressa was a closet atheist. Ha ha ha. It's also unfortunate thing that my Dad didn't find that out before he died, for he revered her for some reason. It would have been good for him to know that she was a fraud as was his own faith in the universe as god. Sad...
I reject god, the holy spirit and sweet zombie jesus.
Remember zombies should be shot in the brain to stop them from being risen from the dead and spreading their afterlife virus. "Diaries of the Dead" and "Doomsday" are two recent and awesome zombie movies. Enjoy.
Peter at 4:48PM on Jun 12th 2008
68. You've never proven anything PerVerted except that you are a perverted idiot.
If any scientist who believes in god where to apply the scientific method to their own beliefs and faith in their mythical god they would have to suspend their belief and faith OTHERWISE they would be failing as scientists.
Science requires proof. Faith requires belief and obedience to the cult's dictates.
Science and Faith are inherently incompatible. Just because a number of people are able to separate their science and faith lives and still do science doesn't mean what you think it means. It simply means that they are not applying the scientific method to their own beliefs. It also demonstrates how flexible the human brain is in compartmentalizing ways of being.
Peter at 4:53PM on Jun 12th 2008
69. That was an excellent comment Clif Kuplen. You taught me something too so I'm doubly appreciative.
Peter at 4:57PM on Jun 12th 2008
70. in the most literal sense of the question DD asks today, it seems that you cannot be a Christian and a evolutionist....unless....you exclude the first part of the Bible.
I am not one who hates religion, but it does seem that religions set up rules to live by, and ways to see the world, and so, Christianity states that the world was made in 6 days only a few thousand years ago.
or does it?
what does Christian thought say about where God comes into the scheme of things on the origin theory? Did Christ say for us to believe the Old Testament. I really don't know.....
abbot at 5:06PM on Jun 12th 2008
71. Kent wrote:
there are two versions of Creation in Genesis. Chapter 2 has God creating Adam, then creating the various animals before creating Eve. In Chapter 1, God creates the Earth and all of the animals, then He creates Man to tend to the animals.
Ryan commented: However, he creates plants before he creates the sun.
Mike says:
Gen 1 is not actually a creation myth at all. It was late in composition and is often ascribed to the High Priest Ezra, who led the return from Babylon. Ezra is also suspected of being the Redactor who combined into a single collection the various books that has been saved from the destruction of Jerusalem, smoothing over the cracks and adding what were by then current Jewish beliefs.
What preserved Jewish identity in exile was Sabbath-keeping, and Gen 1 is a poem to the Sabbath. The importance of keeping Sabbath is emphasized by portraying "God Himself" as doing so. But what labor is fitting for God to rest from? The biggest of all: building the heavens and the earth; i.e., the kit and kaboodle, the lock, stock, and barrel. The poem is highly formalized:
Day 1: the workman lights the lamp in the workshop.
Day 2: rough carpentry on the heavens
Day 3: rough carpentry on the earth
Day 4: fine carpentry on the heavens
Day 5: fine carpentry on the earth
Day 6: the finishing touches
Day 7: observe the Sabbath.
In addition - and directly addressing the Babylonian gods - he is shown as making the =heavens= and the earth. The Babylonians believed the lights in the skies were gods (esp. the ones that moved around) and that they were influential in human affairs (whence, astrology). But the Jews said that the heavens were "just another created thing" and not themselves alive and divine.
It is also interesting to note that in Gen 1, God tells the seas and the earth to "bring forth" and the seas and the earth "brought forth." This clearly indicates that the Judeo-Christian God was thought of as working =through= material natures; i.e., through natural laws, not maic tricks.
In neither poetry (Gen1) nor myth (Gen 2) are strict chronology, internal coherence, or correspondence to historical or scientific facts a requirement. The sequence of events in the two chapters are laid out in order to teach a lesson, not to report on matters that would centuries later seem important to Greek philosophers.
Mike at 8:24PM on Jun 12th 2008
72. For you faith freaks here is a good site for learning about evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
Peter at 5:25PM on Jun 12th 2008
73. Peter: You've never proven anything
PV: I proved your thesis wrong. You said religion and science were incompatible, and I proved you wrong by pointing out that modern science was largely the product of devout religionists.
Moreover, only the most minor aspects of Darwinian theory have any support by experimentation. The rest is just hopeful guessing disproved by statistical probabilities, the fact that mutations are nearly 100% harmful, and the reality that no intermediate life forms can be found in the fossil record.
Even worse, evolutionary theorists have never attempted to propose any detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion. Such a model would be impossible, as many organs (and even cells) are multifaceted systems that rely on the multiple parts working together in unity to accomplish their functions. Attempts at describing how these essential disparate parts of the system all evolved at the same time to produce a cooperating functioning result are beyond laughable and require so much faith that they simply can't be taken seriously.
preteristvision at 5:37PM on Jun 12th 2008
74. Thanks, Peter. 65 was an interesting comment from you. It's true about mother theresa, too and worth taking a while to take in.
I think the zombi is more in the followers, though...I'm not sure what orisha JC would resemble, that said - posters here would probably hope to be the horse for Chango, but I'm more the Legba type, personally.
Clif Kuplen at 5:57PM on Jun 12th 2008
75. PV: I proved your thesis wrong. You said religion and science were incompatible, and I proved you wrong by pointing out that modern science was largely the product of devout religionists.
No, you've proved nothing "wrong" nor "right".
Again all you've shown is that you simply ignore the evidence that people put forward.
Peter at 6:15PM on Jun 12th 2008