Lauri Lebo blog and the End of the World

| 167 Comments

2010-07-26_gazette_May_21_2011.jpgI just realized/figured out that Lauri Lebo, the reporter of Dover fame, and co-resident at the International Beer Can Museum, has an RSS feed for her posts at Religion Dispatches. Lots of fun stuff there, including the upcoming end of the world. By the way, we’ve got a guy on the Berkeley campus, David Temple, who is regularly out on the quad handing out these weird scrawled predictions of the end of the world starting May 21, 2011. He also hits the Integrative Biology building a couple times a year. I’ve saved a few since I figured this would make for a really good party next year.

I always assumed that the scrawling and Bible-verse quoting meant that David Temple was doing his own Bible-based numerology, but maybe he’s getting it from Harold Camping? Does anyone have any insight? I know a lot more about the literalists who focus on the beginning times than I do about the end-times guys. (Although, as you can see, the two are intimately connected.)

(HT: John Pieret)

Darwin Day 2008, cell phone pics:

2008-02-11_judgment_day_above_DD_poster_both.jpg

Scan of poster:

2008-02_end_of_world_VLSB_poster_2011-05.jpg

Later in Spring 2008:

2008-04q_David_Temple_flier.jpg

And July 2010:

2010-07_David_Temple_flier.jpg

167 Comments

I guess FamilyRadio.com = Harold Camping, so, yes. Isn’t Camping based in the Bay Area himself?

Just by coincidence I was looking at skeptic.com a few minutes ago.

David Morrison addresses some pretty wacky questions over there also. :-)

I love this stuff - a sort of algebra of inanity, resulting in nonsense. Totally cool!

So we’re on the seven thousandth year so that means we have to wait another thousand years before they stop making doomsday predictions? Because in the eight thousandth year they would realize they were wrong? (Rhetorical question.)

May 21, 2011, eh?

Is there any chance whatsoever that there will be a massive, a truly monumental, roast organised for this basket-case piece of nutbar on May 22?

About the same chance as with all the other nutbars, I guess.

His writing is nice and legible, but I wonder why he doesn’t use a computer. He has an email address, after all.

The last one ends with “J.D.” Is this guy a lawyer?

My friend’s birthday is May 21. Maybe she’s the Antichrist, and that day is Antichristmas.

“Is this guy a lawyer?”

Well, he’s not admitted to practice law in California (if “David Temple” is his real name):

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member.aspx

But a lot of the people with J.D.s from the unaccredited law schools in California never pass the bar exam.

Nick,

Thanks for this. Don’t always have time to read Lauri’s posts, but hers are quite thoughtful and well written. Am glad she’s opted to join the fight against evolution denialists on a permanent basis.

Well, at least that hypothesis is easily tested. Although, no matter what actually happens on that day, he will no doubt claim that that is exactly what he meant by “the end of the world”. Unless of course this guy has access to nucyaler weapons and plans on helping things along just to prove he was right. (Well that’s the way the former president thought it was spelled apparently).

Dear Nick:

People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main “mechanism” causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

Ray Martinez said:

Dear Nick:

People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main “mechanism” causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

Except when those people stand up and make total asses of themselves in front of the whole world, rewrite history, and then try to legislate their views and beliefs on everyone else, all the time crying “help! help!, I’m being persecuted!”

DS said:

Well, at least that hypothesis is easily tested. Although, no matter what actually happens on that day, he will no doubt claim that that is exactly what he meant by “the end of the world”. Unless of course this guy has access to nucyaler weapons and plans on helping things along just to prove he was right. (Well that’s the way the former president thought it was spelled apparently).

It would be fascinating, following on Festinger, to interview this guy on May 22.

No, Ray, I suppose we shouldn’t laugh at loons like you. It’s unkind. Ungenerous. Very close to mocking the afflicted. Almost like shooting fish in a barrel, too. Takes all the challenge out of making fun of people, when they’re as crazy as you guys.

It’s fun, though, can’t deny that.

Agreed:

Dave Luckett said:

No, Ray, I suppose we shouldn’t laugh at loons like you. It’s unkind. Ungenerous. Very close to mocking the afflicted. Almost like shooting fish in a barrel, too. Takes all the challenge out of making fun of people, when they’re as crazy as you guys.

It’s fun, though, can’t deny that.

Welcome back Ray. I thought you were shanghaied to China, trying to proselytize the people of my ancestral homeland. Or wound up in the belly of a Burmese python, being digested slowly.

May I suggest you read Lauri Lebo’s superb book, “The Devil in Dover”? Think she had you in mind when she was writing her terse, superb book.

Ray -

You worship a false GOD. I doubt the real Judeo-Christian GOD would applaud a delusional intellectually-challenged fool like yourself, but instead would demand that you think for yourself and recognize finally that evolution is a well established scientific fact.

Anyway, I have news for you. There is more “truth” in Klingon Cosmology than shall ever exist for ID, YEC, or other forms of cretinism. How? Here’s how:

1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they’re there, then they are real.

2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I’m not mistaken).

3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon.

4) The Bible and Shakespeare’s plays have been translated into Klingon.

5) And just this week, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

If I were a smart businessman I would start running sales with the hook, “No payments until May 22, 2011!!!!!!”

Ray Martinez said:

Dear Nick:

People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main “mechanism” causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

WHY NOT?

A few years ago one of those grocery store “newspapers” had a headline that the world was going to end on Nov 22 2005. So I posted it on the board for my students to see. On Nov 23 I came into class with candy bars to celebrate our survival of the end of the world. My students had a good time and learned a little skepticism at the same time. A friend of mine had a co-worker doing the “I know the date of the end of the world thing”,so being a lawyer she drew up a contract that signed over all his possessions to her on the day after and challenged him to sign it. Funny thing his “faith” wasn’t strong enough to sign it. Any one who claims to believe this stuff should be held to it. If their faith is strong enough to try to make every one else live according to what they believe god wants then it should be strong enough to give up all worldly possessions if they think they know when the end of the world is. I have often made the claim that I KNOW as much about god as anybody on earth and I dare anybody to prove me wrong. The key being of course the word “know” because nobody “knows” anything about god include whether or not there is one.

Mary H said:

A few years ago one of those grocery store “newspapers” had a headline that the world was going to end on Nov 22 2005. So I posted it on the board for my students to see. On Nov 23 I came into class with candy bars to celebrate our survival of the end of the world. My students had a good time and learned a little skepticism at the same time. A friend of mine had a co-worker doing the “I know the date of the end of the world thing”,so being a lawyer she drew up a contract that signed over all his possessions to her on the day after and challenged him to sign it. Funny thing his “faith” wasn’t strong enough to sign it. Any one who claims to believe this stuff should be held to it. If their faith is strong enough to try to make every one else live according to what they believe god wants then it should be strong enough to give up all worldly possessions if they think they know when the end of the world is. I have often made the claim that I KNOW as much about god as anybody on earth and I dare anybody to prove me wrong. The key being of course the word “know” because nobody “knows” anything about god include whether or not there is one.

Isn’t there a company in the US that promises to take care of the pets of those who are taken with Jesus in the Rapture (for a modest fee, ofcourse)? Is their business booming?

I’ve been reading Gantz lately and the current arc/theme is that the world is ending, there is no God, and humans must defend themselves. More entertaining than numerology.

Eddie Janssen said:

Isn’t there a company in the US that promises to take care of the pets of those who are taken with Jesus in the Rapture (for a modest fee, ofcourse)? Is their business booming?

I like the bumper sticker that asks, “Can I have your car when you’re raptured up?”

Eddie Janssen said:

Mary H said:

A few years ago one of those grocery store “newspapers” had a headline that the world was going to end on Nov 22 2005. So I posted it on the board for my students to see. On Nov 23 I came into class with candy bars to celebrate our survival of the end of the world. My students had a good time and learned a little skepticism at the same time. A friend of mine had a co-worker doing the “I know the date of the end of the world thing”,so being a lawyer she drew up a contract that signed over all his possessions to her on the day after and challenged him to sign it. Funny thing his “faith” wasn’t strong enough to sign it. Any one who claims to believe this stuff should be held to it. If their faith is strong enough to try to make every one else live according to what they believe god wants then it should be strong enough to give up all worldly possessions if they think they know when the end of the world is. I have often made the claim that I KNOW as much about god as anybody on earth and I dare anybody to prove me wrong. The key being of course the word “know” because nobody “knows” anything about god include whether or not there is one.

Isn’t there a company in the US that promises to take care of the pets of those who are taken with Jesus in the Rapture (for a modest fee, ofcourse)? Is their business booming?

Surely Christian pets would be raptured ? It’s part of the apokatastasis

Eddie Janssen said:

Isn’t there a company in the US that promises to take care of the pets of those who are taken with Jesus in the Rapture (for a modest fee, ofcourse)? Is their business booming?

http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/

A company to take care of pets after the rapture?

Unfotunatly I can’t check out the website but I have a whole list of questions.…

Like what kind of people do you hire to make sure you still have a business after the rapture?

How do you know you can trust those people to run the business after the rapture?

Anyway, going back to the original topic, I recall the Bible explicitly says that the second comming will come like a theif in the night and that you will not know the day or hour. I guess he missed that part.

Isn’t there a company in the US that promises to take care of the pets of those who are taken with Jesus in the Rapture (for a modest fee, of course)? Is their business booming?

http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/

Ray Martinez said:

Dear Nick:

People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main “mechanism” causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

People like yourself who can’t even accurately describe the fundamentals of evolutionary theory after having had them explained to you over and over should not be snickering at them.

Pets, now. I have as a companion an aged poodle, who is far more fit for Heaven than most human beings I know. If she isn’t going there, I’m not either.

Heaven, it is said, is the place where all the dogs you have loved and who have loved you run, barking with joy, to greet you as you come in.

I wish with all my heart it were so.

Think about the fundamental error in this statement, Ray. Think hard. Think very hard.

Ray Martinez said: People like yourself who believe that…animals…f*cking is the main “mechanism” causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

We do not “believe” that animals fucking is the main mechanism behind biological production. No belief required: there is a mountain of evidence, backed up by plenty of empirical observations, that this is the case. This is, as they say, a no-brainer.

Then, my young padawan, consider this koan of grandmotherly kindness:

If you wear clown shoes, expect to be called a bozo.

DS said: …no matter what actually happens on that day, he will no doubt claim that that is exactly what he meant by “the end of the world”.

This is a variant of “Last Thursdayism” - yes, the world ended yesterday, and we’re now in the next frame of existence, and you can’t tell the difference.

henry said:

DS said:

henry said:

After 150 years, the mosquito is still a mosquito in London, though there are changes, which shows that it is programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. The same goes for finches and dogs.

So Henry, you decided not to read the paper about dog evolution that I posted. What a surprise. The paper contains evidence of the mutations that have occurred in the dog genome, when and where they occurred, the morphologies that they affect and the interactions between different traits that are evolving simultaneously. The information was not “programmed in”. The mutations arose randomly over time. You have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

As for mosquitos and finches, they have demonstrably evolved into new species. This was not programmed in either. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that it was. The scientific papers that you cite do NOT support your baseless contentions, quite the contrary. Quoting a creationist interpretation of the evidence that proves that dogs evolved is not going to get you anywhere. Give it up lad. You is toast.

Now if you want to discuss the evolution of evolvability, that might be an interesting discussion. But it has nothing to do with planning, foresight, intelligence or programming.

Do you have a link to your paper?

What assurance do we have that you will bother to read the paper in the first place?

You wouldn’t read it even if God commanded you to do so, under pain of death and eternal torture. Hell, you never read anything we provide you, to begin with.

Not that you would be physically capable of understanding it, anyhow.

henry said:

DS said:

henry said:

After 150 years, the mosquito is still a mosquito in London, though there are changes, which shows that it is programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. The same goes for finches and dogs.

So Henry, you decided not to read the paper about dog evolution that I posted. What a surprise. The paper contains evidence of the mutations that have occurred in the dog genome, when and where they occurred, the morphologies that they affect and the interactions between different traits that are evolving simultaneously. The information was not “programmed in”. The mutations arose randomly over time. You have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

As for mosquitos and finches, they have demonstrably evolved into new species. This was not programmed in either. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that it was. The scientific papers that you cite do NOT support your baseless contentions, quite the contrary. Quoting a creationist interpretation of the evidence that proves that dogs evolved is not going to get you anywhere. Give it up lad. You is toast.

Now if you want to discuss the evolution of evolvability, that might be an interesting discussion. But it has nothing to do with planning, foresight, intelligence or programming.

Do you have a link to your paper?

I would recommend that you try searching “culex molestans london underground mosquito” in scholar.google.com , but, you’re too much of the typical lazy, arrogant ass of a creationist to consider this, always demanding that we spoonfeed you evidence just so you can deliberately intend spit it back in our faces.

Stanton said:

henry said:

DS said:

henry said:

After 150 years, the mosquito is still a mosquito in London, though there are changes, which shows that it is programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. The same goes for finches and dogs.

So Henry, you decided not to read the paper about dog evolution that I posted. What a surprise. The paper contains evidence of the mutations that have occurred in the dog genome, when and where they occurred, the morphologies that they affect and the interactions between different traits that are evolving simultaneously. The information was not “programmed in”. The mutations arose randomly over time. You have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

As for mosquitos and finches, they have demonstrably evolved into new species. This was not programmed in either. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that it was. The scientific papers that you cite do NOT support your baseless contentions, quite the contrary. Quoting a creationist interpretation of the evidence that proves that dogs evolved is not going to get you anywhere. Give it up lad. You is toast.

Now if you want to discuss the evolution of evolvability, that might be an interesting discussion. But it has nothing to do with planning, foresight, intelligence or programming.

Do you have a link to your paper?

I would recommend that you try searching “culex molestans london underground mosquito” in scholar.google.com , but, you’re too much of the typical lazy, arrogant ass of a creationist to consider this, always demanding that we spoonfeed you evidence just so you can deliberately intend spit it back in our faces.

I think you meant culex molestus. We’re still talking about mosquitoes, not some higher, more complex species. Whether we’re discussing dogs, finches, etc., they remain dogs, finches, etc. None of the creation scientists I’ve read deny changes happen, contrary to the claims usually made here. Their observation is there isn’t macroevolution occurring, no vertical change, only variations within the kind.

henry said: Do you have a link to your paper?

Yes Henry, I do. The link is free. I posted it on August third. Here it is again.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/[…]pbio.1000310

Now Henry, if you can bring yourself to actually read this paper, you will see that it absolutely falsifies your front loading hypothesis. In particular, the observed linkage disequilibrium alone demonstrates conclusively that you are just plain wrong, period. Now Henry, you must admit that you were wrong. You must admit that you are ignorant of all of the evidence and that you haver no right to an opinion. If you cannot do this, then you will be rightly ignored form now on. Give it up dude, you have been busted - again.

Of course there are only variations within the kind (well, except for hybridizations and horizontal transfers, if you want to be picky). Birds and mammals are varieties of the reptile kind. reptiles are varieties of the amphibian kind, which are varieties of the fish kind, which are varieties of the bilateral kind, which are varieties of the animal kind. Er, what was the question again?

Henry

henry said:

I think you meant culex molestus. We’re still talking about mosquitoes, not some higher, more complex species. Whether we’re discussing dogs, finches, etc., they remain dogs, finches, etc. None of the creation scientists I’ve read deny changes happen, contrary to the claims usually made here. Their observation is there isn’t macroevolution occurring, no vertical change, only variations within the kind.

Creationist molester, that is a well-known denialist tactic called moving the goalposts. You claim that variations within a line of organisms are only within a “kind” without even bothering to define what a kind is. Sorry, won’t fly here.

To show an incredible example of actual macro-evolution, look here:

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

henry said:

It wasn’t the orthodox Christians who wanted war–it was the liberals. After they gained control of the Presbyterian Church, they booted Machen out of the denomination, which showed that their claim of peace and tolerance were just meaningless words. Useful when they were in the minority but when they took control, no more tolerance.

Fortunately, the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention were able to defeat the liberals for the time being. The liberals in any denomination seemed to only want to takeover their denomination rather than start their own. If they disagree with the statement of faith, or confession, or orthodox position, then they should do the hard work and build their own church.

What a nice set of delusions. What universe did you come from? Not the one I know! None of your statements make any sense.

Come on Henry. Wes a waitin. I posted the link about dog evolution nearly three weeks ago. I challenged you to explain the evidence nearly two weeks ago. Now you are asking for the link? Come on dude, it’s like free, ya know. I’m sure you will easily be able to understand it. SInce you know all about what is and isn’t known in science. I’m sure you keep up with all of the scientific literature, right?

Why is it that none of these yahoos will ever read a even a single paper, even after they demand to see the paper? Just another guy who want to play tennis but lacks the balls.

Dale Husband said:

It wasn’t the Liberal Christians who wanted war–it was the Fundamentalist bigots. After they lost control of the Northern Presbyterian Church, Machen left the denomination and founded his own, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which showed that their claims of love and brotherhood in Jesus were just meaningless words. Useful when they were in power but when they lost control, no more desire for unity and mutual respect.

That is my counter to henry’s delusional claim earlier.

To be fair, Machen proved only that what goes around comes around. After he founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a faction even more rigid in its fundamentalism broke away from his group to form the Bible Presbyterian Church. One of the issues that split them apart was whether alcohol consumption should be allowed, despite the clear Biblical accounts of Jesus doing things like turning water into wine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_[…]erian_Church

These extremists later helped found the “Religious Right”, which Machen never would have accepted. Ironic, eh?

henry, the mosquito is just as complex a lifeform as you are. It is not “simple” just because it’s smaller than you, or less “intelligent”, whatever we mean by that interesting word. Your attempt to differentiate between “simple” and “complex” lifeforms in those terms is only ignorance and nothing more.

When are you going to admit that your comprehensive ignorance of the nature of living things disqualifies you for making statements about the origin of life?

henry, the mosquito is just as complex a lifeform as you are.

perhaps slightly less annoying, though.

Dale Husband said:

To be fair, Machen proved only that what goes around comes around. After he founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a faction even more rigid in its fundamentalism broke away from his group to form the Bible Presbyterian Church. One of the issues that split them apart was whether alcohol consumption should be allowed, despite the clear Biblical accounts of Jesus doing things like turning water into wine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_[…]erian_Church

These extremists later helped found the “Religious Right”, which Machen never would have accepted. Ironic, eh?

The irony is most extreme particularly in the connection with the Religious Right. First, the Organizing Act of 1789 which forms the core principles of almost all American Presbyterian Denominations. It’s generally accepted that Witherspoon was the main author of this:

Therefore, they consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal, and unalienable: they do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and, at the same time, equal and common to all others.

This right extended to allowing for so-called scruples of church officers when subscribing to the Westminster Standards. From the Adopting Act of 1729 that establish subscription to the Westminster standards but the context of such subscription is circumscribed by the following:

Although the synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon other men’s consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with and abhorrence of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another, as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven …

And the Synod do solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those that differ from us in these extra-essential and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such Sentiments.

Concentrating on the PCUSA/OPC or OPC/BPC splits missed the big split in American Presbyterian history, the split between the Northern and Southern churches. What caused the split was the Gardiner Spring Resolutions where the church was to pledge allegiance to the Federal Government and the Constitution.

Gratefully acknowledging the distinguished bounty and care of Almighty God towards this favored land, and also recognizing our obligations to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, this General Assembly adopts the following resolutions:

1. Resolved, That in view of the present agitated and unhappy condition of this country, the first day of July next be hereby set apart as a day of prayer throughout our bounds; and that on that day ministers and people are called on humbly to confess and bewail our national sins; to offer our thanks to the Father of light for his abundant and undeserved goodness to us as a nation; to seek his guidance and blessing upon our rulers and their counsels, as well as on the Congress of the United States about to assemble; and to implore Him, in the name of Jesus Christ, the great High Priest of the Christian profession, to turn away his anger from us, and speedily restore to us the blessings of an honorable peace.

2. Resolved, That this General Assembly, in the spirit of that Christian patriotism which the Scriptures enjoin, and which has always characterized this Church, do hereby acknowledge and declare our obligations to promote and perpetuate, so far as in us lies, the integrity of these United States, and to strengthen, uphold, and encourage the Federal Government in the exercise of all its functions under our noble Constitution; and to this Constitution in all its provisions, requirements, and principles, we profess our unabated loyalty.

Numerous dissents and protests followed. For example A.G. Hall said:

I would most solemnly, yet respectfully, protest against the adoption by this Assembly, of the second resolution of the minority report of the Committee on the present state of the country, not because I am opposed to the patriotic sentiments therein expressed, for I recognize it to be my duty, as a citizen of the United States, especially urgent in this time of our country’s peril, to do all in my power to sustain the Government in all its constitutional efforts to suppress rebellion against all authority, and to preserve the integrity of the Union. But I hold it to be made the duty of the Assembly by the Constitution of the Church, to abstain from all political deliverances, and to confine itself exclusively to ecclesiastical action.

Charles Hodge said:

We make this protest, not because we do not acknowledge loyalty to our country to be a moral and religious duty, according to the word of God, which requires us to be subject to the powers that be; nor because we deny the right of the Assembly to enjoin that, and all other like duties, on the ministers and churches under its care; but because we deny the right of the General Assembly to decide the political question, to what government the allegiance of Presbyterians as citizens is due, and its rights to make that decision a condition of membership in our Church.

The General Assembly has always acted on the principle that the Church has no right to make anything a condition of Christian or ministerial fellowship, which is not enjoined or required in the Scriptures and the Standards of the Church.

We have, at one time, resisted the popular demand to make total abstinence from intoxicating liquors a term of membership.

The last sentence is the real reason Machen left/got kicked out of the PCUSA. According to OPC historian DG Hart:

Machen’s opposition to Prohibition was a major reason for the General Assembly’s failure to confirm his nomination. As one of his friends later told him, the Assembly was “rabidly Prohibitionist”; commissioners could not understand why a good Christian would not support such an obviously good and biblical cause.

Machen opposed Presbyterian support for Prohibition, however, not because he approved of drunkenness or preferred unpopularity. Rather he did so for important theological—even Reformed—reasons. In a statement defending his position (never published again because of the damage his friends believed it would have done) Machen argued that the church had no legitimate rationale for taking a side in this political question. Aside from the question of the relations between church and state, he believed that the church was bound by the Word of God and so all of its declarations and resolutions had to have clear Scriptural warrant. The Bible did not, however, provide support for Prohibition. It taught the idea of temperance, that is, moderate consumption of alcohol and the other good things of God’s creation. This meant that Scripture forbade inebriation. But even here the Bible did not give directions to government officials for abolishing drunkenness. Should this be a matter for the federal government to regulate or should states and local governments? Was legislation the best way to shape public sentiment or was an educational program more effective? Was regulation of private citizens’ behavior even a proper concern of the state? The Bible did not answer these and various other questions. So, Machen concluded, the church had no business meddling in the politics of Prohibition or any other matter where Scripture did not speak.

Machen did not split because he was a “fighting fundamentalist”. To the contrary, again DG Hart:

A need for greater recognition could possibly explain Machen’s motivation to write Christianity and Liberalism, but such an explanation ignores his genuine ambivalence regarding the fundamentalist movement with which his book became so closely associated. Machen stood for practically everything that fundamentalism did not. Where fundamentalists were anti-creedal and anti-clerical, Machen’s instincts were confessional and churchly; where fundamentalists had the reputation of being rural and anti-intellectual, Machen thrived in urban and academic settings. What is more, he regarded fundamentalist eschatology (i.e., dispensationalism) as bizarre and extreme, avoided altogether the crusade against evolution even though invited to testify at the Scopes trial, and viewed United States’ politics in ways remarkably different from fundamentalists - Machen opposed prayer and Bible reading in public schools and the churches’ support for Prohibition because he did not believe America was a Christian nation.

Another piece of historical irony happened when the late D. James Kennedy brought a resolution in support of then Judge Roy Moore to the floor of the PCA General Assembly (the PCA split from the Southern Presbyterian Church in 1973). The resolution went down in flames and during the debate Gardiner Springs was mentioned by name since the church was supposed to stay out of politics.

Still a waitin Henry old boy. Now why did you demand a link to the article if you wasn’t gonna read it? Fraid to admit you was wrong? Fess up lad. Its OK. We all make mistakes. At least now you have learned to read the literature first before pontificating about things you know nothing about.

Come on man. You can be the first creationist to read a real paper. EVER! Go for it man. You can at least try a quote mine or two. All you have to do is assume that no one else will read the paper, then you can just make stuff up that wasn’t even in there.

See the thing is Henry, that you will have to came up with a better explanation for all of the genetic evidence than the one provided by evolution. Notice that all of the evidence is exactly what is predicted if evolution is true. Now all you have to do is to show how your hypothesis better explains the evidence. You can start by predicting what the evidence should look like if your hypothesis is correct. In fact, you should do that before reading the paper. Then everyone will know that you have more than just post-hoc reasoning.

Still waitin Henry.

Done waitin Henry.

Next time you demand an article, I will politely refer you to this thread. It’s one thing to be wrong, it’s another thing to be ignorant and it’s something else entirely to be willfully ignorant. If you want to play, come back when you get some balls. Game, set and match.

henry said:

Whether we’re discussing dogs, finches, etc., they remain dogs, finches, etc.

So where is your objective definition of “dog” or “finch”? Don’t have any? Then you are merely playing a semantic game. Your argument amounts to “I don’t care how much a dog’s descendants differ from it, I can still call it a dog”. Well yes, yes you can, but freedom of speech isn’t at issue here. What is at issue is whether or not there is any reason, based on scientific evidence, as opposed to religious desire, to not distinguish as seperate species, various subsets of these groups. And indeed there is, since many cannot interbreed, which is one of the defining aspects of a species.

Your stubborn insistence of going into no more detail than “dog” or “finch” when referring to these creatures is akin to refusing to distinguish between people who live in Brazil and people who live in Panama or Costa Rica and just referring to them all as “Mexicans” (hat tip - Molly Ivans). It says a lot about your state of mind, not so much about reality.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on July 29, 2010 12:42 AM.

Creationists on the Square in Madison, Wisconsin was the previous entry in this blog.

Teaching Tree-Thinking to Undergraduate Biology Students is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter