In the news this week ...

Can forced sterilization ever be ethical?

Yes. If someone is in no position to look after kids and can not be trusted to use contraception, then they should be sterilized if they are likely to get pregnant time and time again. There is something unethical about allowing women to get pregnant when it is know that their babies will be taken from them at birth. Forced sterilization is certain circumstances is a no brainer.

Peter Robinson going to Catholic Mass. This is a way of saying: "I'm a leader not a nutter!"

" German Catholic church ordains married man"
This is far from unique in the States.The Catholic chaplin at our local hospital was formerly a Methodist minister. He also has a wife & children.
Our previous pastor was a former Baptist physician who had been married, divorced, remarried & then widowed.After researching different denominations beliefs on the sanctity of life he decided to become a Catholic & then studied for the priesthood.His children & grandchildren were all present at his ordination.Don't know about the ex-wife. Maybe she was there, too. :)

"Peter Robinson: I'll go to Catholic Mass"
Interesting article but what I really enjoyed was the other article in this paper about Belfast expressions.Some are exactly what we use in America, but what does "wee skitters" mean?

NASA astronauts kill God. From Americas finest news source:

https://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-completes-52year-mission-to-find-kill-god,19263/

Peter (hi, again, hope you are well)

"From Americas finest news source"

What *all* of them?

;-)

"The US government says it will no longer defend in the courts a law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriages approved by states."

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12560964

mscracker: wee skitters - cheeky wee children....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

PK

The Ingin (as we call it up here in Scotland)...

https://www.stooryduster.co.uk/ingin

...is wrong...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Duke

Charlie (10th man to walk on the moon) visited Scotland a few months ago. He was great. He also confirms that the moon is not made of cheese.

BC

Dear Eunice,
Thanks for the "wee skitters" translation!

I saw this news item here on the BBC site today & thought it was interesting:
"Italy arrests Moroccans for inciting hatred of Pope"
And yes, I need to be be more tech-smart & be able to provide links.Sorry.
And something I've been pondering: I haven't looked at this blog for a long enough period of time to really see the full picture, but I do seem to note few news items/topics that hold traditional religion in a positive light.
Is this because as a member of a mainstream denomination I tend to look at things with preconceptions? Or is there some validity to what I sense?
I very much support freedom of speech & it's quite a blogger's right to pick material as they so choose.But it does seem a bit tilted in one direction from my short span as a reader.
I very much enjoyed the post "Facing the music." It reminded me of the sources of our sacred music in America.I hope Rev. Stewart & his flock may continue to preserve their music, too.

RE teacher attacked with a Stanley knife, an iron rod and a block of cement. Four thugs objected to his teaching religion to Muslim girls. Jaw fractured.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359160/4-men-slashed-teachers-face-teaching-religions-Muslim-girls.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

On the subject of great Irish writers, i was interested to hear on the only edition of 'Sunday Sequence' i've managed to tune into that Blessed John Henry Newman was hailed by James Joyce as "the greatest of English prose writers".

Sunday Sequence had a perfect example this morning to demonstrate why religion as it stands does not come from God - it (religion) promotes separation of humanity such that people cannot even attend another's funeral and squabble over beliefs etc. God is love and nothing that truly comes from God would promote such separation ergo religion does not come from God. Or is that too provocative, too challenging or just too simple for people to accept as true?? Perhaps it is really that simple.

According to Wallace Thompson "Roman Catholicism is the most intense darkness". If that's all it is I wouldn't be too bothered, but it is the intense harm that it causes that worries me. Apart from the multitudes of children who have suffered direct harm at the hands of paedophile priests, there is the constant meddling by the Vatican in the sovereign affairs of elected democracies throughout the world. But I don't want to give the impression that I'm with Thompson and the Caleb Foundation. No way!

As Eunice says, the squabbling on this morning's programme about whether a Protestant should attend the church service of dead Catholic friend was proof positive of the harm caused to society by the spread of divisive religious dogma.

Yes Newlach - it's a pity sunday sequence keeps bringing out the religious hardliners and fundamentalists that perpetuate such harming untruths ......instead of some more enlightened views. I'm sure there are more people in NI who would appreciate that than just myself and who are tired of hearing the same old guff. More of a turn off than a turn on! (the radio that is!! haha).

Eunice

The programme also included a short interview with the Presbyterian Moderator, Norman Hamilton, who said he would attend the service but leave before the Eucharistic part. This man, a supposed moderate voice, is giving the message to Presbyterians that if attending the funeral of a Catholic friend they should conduct a mass walkout halfway through - one evangelical on the programme of a Calvinist background wouldn't even go this far.

The hard-liners are all over the canvass and I'm afraid that to get the fresh insight that you and others want it might require church leaders and their henchmen to be completely painted over!

Newlach: great idea - there are plenty of people outside a church who know a thing or 2 about God....maybe more outside the church than inside the church! lol Many atheists are more loving towards others than many religious people - and IMO are more Godly than the religious although they wont see it like that and I don't mean it as an insult to those who can't stand God or that language- but point is its the love that matters and how that is lived in all our interactions.
As I said such views by those supposedly with some knowledge of God are just so far off the mark IMO - what is loving about such attitudes?? zero - God has nothing to do with it. All mind-driven human concoctions/beliefs with no heart, no love. If I recall correctly I think Will even made the point that he was asking about pastoral care, about a loving response - they still didn't get it!

I've never actually listened to Sunday Sequence. I don't listen to Radio Ulster. I tend to use the TV to get my radio stations, and once I tuned in to Radio Ulster and Hugo Duncan was on. The TV started to melt and now, try as I might, the poor traumatised machine just will not allow me to select that channel. It reacts like a cat held over a bath. It's completely hugophobic.

But it does seem somewhat odd that someone like Wallace Thompson is allowed so much airtime, given the tiny, tiny minority he represents among Protestants, and also given that he is a political lobbyist who uses religion as a crowbar to air views fairly akin to fascism.

I live in quiet hope that these kinds of internecine squabbles might be the way that religions pull themselves apart and save the rest of us the bother.

After "listening again" to Sunday Sequence via the BBCiPlayer, I must remember to thank my 85 year old Mom for leaving the North of Ireland in 1947 and coming to Canada. The city where I grew up, Montreal, has roughly the same population as does Ulster today. My Mom had a Protestant Father and a Catholic Mother, and she was wise enough (at the age of 19 with 5 younger brothers) to leave that place after both her parents had died too early. Ergo, I simply cannot comprehend any problem with attending any funeral mass for anyone who was a friend or otherwise important to you, regardless of the "faith" to which they belonged.
I agree completely with the sentiments of Eunice today. I mean, why would anyone want to move to such a sectarian place? People like Wallace Thompson seem so out of touch with the world in 2011, in that they do their "country" a huge disservice internationally; for he seems to put religious dogma over faith.

About Face

I've never held a cat over a bath. What do cats do in such a position?

A failure of the imagination Peter? From you? Well I never...

Buckaroo, I'm not surprised you're glad your mother got out. Mr Thompon's organisation call for a repeat of the "Great Revival" of 1859. They wanted to be able to call for something amid all celebrations of Darwin in 2009.

What makes listening to these people particularly painful for me is how much they drown out other voices and put people off the kind of political engagement that might lead to progressive movements here. I moved away for quite a number of years and became involved in various movements, but to return and find people almost as politically disengaged as they were towards the end of the Troubles, and finding these idiots still being given airtime, is pretty painful.

And it's a shame that the impression they are giving of this place is that it's sectarian across the board. It's not. The decent majority are apathetic and too modest for politics. So ignoramuses like Thompson step in to fill the space. I wish more decent people here would stand up and be counted and we could rid ourselves of the culture of deference that opens political space for this stupid, shouty, mindless minority to fill.

Here Peter, this should help... https://www.zazzle.com/scared_cartoon_cat_funny_card-137539386066874365

”A failure of the imagination Peter? From you? Well I never...”

About Face,

I appreciate the compliment! ;-)

But to more pressing things.

Holy cat malojian, Batman! They go a pale shade of orange with darker orange stripes? What, all of them?


I should point out that ‘cat malojian’, as well as being a band (which, from memory, once graced the pages of this blog), is also a saying which I am familiar with. It was used to mean ‘terrible’, as in, “It’s a wil’ bad day the day.” “Aye! It’s cat malojian.”

This isn't really *news*, since it was published 74 yrs ago, but I found it a fascinating glimpse into a world of Catholic social history I hadn't been aware of.
https://books.google.com/books?id=N0EEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
It's just a small article on pages 24 & 25. As I was glancing through, I had a real double take at the caption below the page 25 picture- is a real juxtaposition of identities.

This collection is an amazing window into the past if anyone's as interested as I am in social history. Wonderful the things you can stumble across online :)
https://books.google.com/books?id=N0EEAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_all_issues_r&cad=1

Here's a shocker (in my opinion).

I profoundly disagree with the Supreme Court ruling. I'm for curbing freedom of speech if it conflicts with certain basic rights, such as being allowed to mourn respectfully (which has been a part of human culture since time immemorial). I'd be interested to hear other views on this case.

LSV - agree totally with you - its disgraceful that such nonsense is allowed to continue and supports such depraved behaviour towards fellow human beings. In addition, that they claim to do it in the name of God is just absurd, ridiculous, evil and obscene.

LSV,

So you support censorship if it offends people?

Totally agree LSV. They're totally sick. What about the human rights of the friends/relatives at the funeral and their right to grieve. One day one of these protesters may get shot by a grieving relative and the Supreme Court decision will have facilitated that chain of events

Natman (@ 28) -

"So you support censorship if it offends people?"

Yes and no.

And on that I am sure we are agreed. Because if you don't agree that censorship is necessary in certain situations then what about the following...

It's Natman's wedding day and he and his fiancee are standing at the front of wherever (I nearly said 'church'!). Just as they are about to make their vows, promises or whatever you call them, a complete stranger waltzes up to the love of Natman's life, stands six inches from her and starts insulting her in the most obscene way.

Will Natman simply allow this to carry on? Will Natman make no attempt to shield his fiancee from this verbal attack, especially since she has now been reduced to tears? Or will Natman say, "Oh, love, just ignore him. He's only exercising his right to freedom of speech!"

Let me guess what will happen: Natman - or his friends - will frogmarch the offender out of the building, will they not? In other words, they will censor the poor chap!!

Come on, Natman, engage in a bit of 'nuanced' thinking, and stop trying to read some extreme principle into my post (probably in order to score a point).

Natman seems to have done a disappearing act from this thread after asking me such a pointed question.

Oh well...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

LSV seems to have avoided my question altogether - Do you advocate censorship of things people might find distasteful and/or offensive?

In answer to your post - AboutFace is right, that's not censorship. I recognise his right to shout and insult all he wants; that's his right. However, if I punch him in the face because of it, that's also my right, even if it gets me into trouble.

Also, even if we expel him from the area, he can still shout and scream all he likes; we're not censoring him, just moving him on.

Yeah, Natman, I suppose you're right, censorship is a bad thing.

Especially in science lessons.

(Or do the rules change when you're offended?)

I won't bother responding to AboutFarce.

LSV,

Not including ideas with no scientific merit is not censorship.

Or are you seriously suggesting we include -all- the creation myths that have ever been proposed?

Natman -

"Not including ideas with no scientific merit is not censorship.

Or are you seriously suggesting we include -all- the creation myths that have ever been proposed?"

Excellent. Then the philosophy of materialism also has no place in the science classroom, since that is a metaphysical construct that goes way beyond the scientific method.

I'm afraid I don't see how the causal connection between the idea of 'intelligence' and the idea of 'complexity' has no scientific merit, especially considering that the failure to conjoin these two ideas would mean the end of all scientific enterprise anyway. Fancy telling an engineer to make sure he doesn't use 'intelligence' to design something as relatively simple as a bridge, for example?!

As for 'creation myths', these are in the same category as Doctor Who episodes which insinuate a materialistic basis to reality. Just because some people make up stories to make sense of reality, does not mean that all the ideas at the root of those stories are false. In fact, all fiction has some element of 'truth' in it, since writers have to draw their ideas from reality. It is possible to make up a story based on the idea of intelligent design, just as it is possible to write science fiction stories based on the materialistic theory of evolution (the episode of Doctor Who - The Hungry Earth - featuring the reptilian Silurians being a case in point).

So, Natman, stop trying to distort the discussion with irrelevencies.

LSV,

Would you have restricted the clergymen who did a similar thing at the first civil partnerships at City Hall in Belfast ? Fine upstanding but loud and rude prominent Northern Ireland clergy.

Who decides whose gathering can and cannot be respected?


I struggle with this one having been at the receiving end of the abuse while still believing people have the right to assemble, protest and speak their mind.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

LSV,

Still not getting it are you?

Complexity is not evidence of intelligence. It can be a cause of intelligence, it can be a result of intelligence, but intelligence is not a requirement for complexity.

Do I have to direct you to actual, real life, examples of that?

Again and again - just because you cannot comprehend that complexity can arise without intelligence does not make it so.

And as far as I'm aware, and I've sat through a lot of science lessons in my time (something you plainly haven't), the philosophy of materialism isn't mentioned once.

Dave (@ 37) -

"Would you have restricted the clergymen who did a similar thing at the first civil partnerships at City Hall in Belfast ? Fine upstanding but loud and rude prominent Northern Ireland clergy."

Yes, I would. (And no, this is not tyranny, but common sense, as I will explain).

My view is this. Anyone can express whatever opinion they like, but others have the right not to be pestered by such views. So if, for example, I don't want to watch a particular TV programme, guess what I can do? That's right, turn the box off, or change to another channel. If I don't want to read, for instance, the latest anti-Christian rant being sold in a bookshop, I don't have to pick it up and read it (although, of course, I may still catch sight of the cover of the book on the shelf, depending on how it is being displayed). If I don't want to read the latest insult from a blogger, I can just tune out.

But why should anyone be put in a position where they have to listen to something they do not wish to? It's no different from an anti-social neighbour blasting you out with their music all day and night, is it?

Now I accept that there have to be reasonable exceptions to this. For instance, people should have the right to protest against the government, since that is a public institution, and MPs have a duty to listen to the people. Likewise, even private companies may attract legitimate protests, because of their obvious influence on society.

But weddings, funerals etc are private events, and therefore fall into the same category as my choice to read one book rather than another, or my choice to watch one programme rather than another. If I am sitting quietly in a library reading a book of my choice, who has the right to sit next to me and read out loud the words of a book which may offend me (or, indeed, disturb me in my private activity by making any such noise at all!)?

I firmly believe in freedom of speech, but this must go along with the freedom to be allowed to ignore such speech. I find it very sad that the American Supreme Court cannot recognise people's right to be free of offensive speech, if they so choose to be.

Let me also say (and this may surprise some people coming from a Christian) that I don't have a great deal of sympathy for street preachers, who complain when the police move them on. Why should anyone have to listen to this? They can give out leaflets (which people can choose not to read), or advertise an event at which they will be speaking (which people do not have to attend), but why should ordinary people, going about their daily lives, be subjected - against their will - to what is often a very distorted, negative and theologically suspect version of the gospel? These people may cry persecution, but they won't get much sympathy from me.

Natman (@ 39) -

"Complexity is not evidence of intelligence. It can be a cause of intelligence, it can be a result of intelligence, but intelligence is not a requirement for complexity."

Likewise, complexity is not evidence of the lack of intelligence. Therefore all science can do is say "we don't know" concerning origins. Which is fair enough (well, fair enough for this discussion anyway). Constructing theories as to what 'could have happened' is no proof that those things actually 'did happen'.

"Do I have to direct you to actual, real life, examples of that?"

Please do.

LSV,

Science comprehension fail:

You don't include all variables 'just in case'. You only include variables for which you can test and account for.

God, or gods, have no seeming effect on anything, at all (if you have evidence of direct divine intervention, aside from conjecture, you're onto a winner).

As such, the supernatural is not included in science. We look at complexity and have good, robust and well researched theories that explain it. For you to come along later and go 'But, but, but god -might- of done it!' is not reason enough to include it.

I'll need your definition of complexity before I can properly show you. The Oxford dictionary definition is: 'the state or quality of being intricate or complicated'.

Molecular level examinations of crystalline structures are highly intricate and complicated, and arise without any intelligent input whatsoever.

LSV, I agree with post40. I also think people should have the personal space they need, especially if it's to grieve for a loved one. We share our outside space with others, and that necessitates a certain etiquette to be observed by everyone. To protest at the funeral of someone who's served their country and died in the process seems especially heinous. I wonder if they'd chosen a different target how quickly violence would escalate. I assume they search the internet for the funerals of dead servicemen, I wonder if by the same logic they'd searched for murdered muslims and picketed Islamic burials how quickly these protesters would be swooped on and removed.

Just to make a point to AboutFace. I think you're hilarious. It's like having Roger the Alien run riot on the blog. While you were *beating up* LSV at 3am , you were also beating up your liver. You should really ask your GP for a Gamma GT test. That's GT not G&T.

I really do question your credibility at the same time. AboutFace seems a convenient alter ego name for someone like GubbioWolf in the Missal crisis thread (esp post 38). It really wouldn't surprise me that someone with an agenda and an interest in church politics would venture onto a well accessed religious blog with the intention of discrediting an element they have an unhealthy preoccupation with. AboutFace, since you've arrived in this form, on this blog, you've effectively silenced the efforts of those who were putting a supportive case for Gay people in the Unprotected Texts thread. In fact , the only person you showed support to was Andrew, who by dint of his particular understanding of scriptural belief feels homosexuality to be a sin. You've then proceeded to rubbish Parrhasios and LSV over a period of days, both had been prepared to carry on the debate with Andrew in that thread. I'm really not sure there hearts would be in it now.

I just want to say since many people may see you as there only daily dose of homosexuality with your *big as a country* personality & attitude- you are not representantive. I know plenty of gentle , bouncy, kind hearted Gay people who exhibit none of your less savoury characteristics. It would be nice if Dave would continue to be the voice of reason, calm and measured thought in that role, along with many others who offer open minds and open hearts towards Gay people and those affected by religious prejudice and callousness

Ryan: I for one do not take AF as representing the gay population. People are people - gay or straight you get angry ones and joyful ones. Same way I don't take the anger of say a white male to be representative of the white male population.

Natman: **Molecular level examinations of crystalline structures are highly intricate and complicated, and arise without any intelligent input whatsoever.**

Are you absolutely 100% totally certain that that statement is true??
Perhaps there is intelligence behind it - just that you don't perceive it as being so......

Tell you what Ryan I have never claimed to "represent gay people" and I get very annoyed when people appoint themselves as "gay spokespeople".

I have absolutely no disput with Dave and have "known" him on the BBC site for some time in fact. AboutFace is a name with some vintage. I just hadn't posted since about August last year.

It doesn't bother me a jot if you'd prefer the nice gentle bouncy gay people and I haven't sought your sympathy either. In fact I think I mentioned being gay twice - in a relevant thread and then to drive home the point that my being gay is not the whole basis of my objection to religion. Far from it.

So hows about we leave the gay thing to one side now until it becomes relevant again. I promise not to bring it up if you don't.

And please stop offering me sticky-handed sympathy. My old hard-hearted pal LSV has begun to treat me as though I'm making bids for it. I most certainly am not.

Thanks.

Natman -

"Molecular level examinations of crystalline structures are highly intricate and complicated, and arise without any intelligent input whatsoever."

I am going to unashamedly link to one of those really 'nasty' websites, which brings up this question. I have already pointed this out to Helio in #90 on the 'Thanking Darwin' thread. Here is the link.

The key quote from the article is this: ...physical laws are simple and general, and by their nature they produce only repetitive order. Law-governed processes can produce simple repetitious patterns, as in crystals, but they can't produce the complex, specified sequences by which the nucleotides of DNA code for proteins...

In other words, information theory explains why it is invalid to compare the structure of crystals with that of complex living organisms. The nature of the information is fundamentally different. Crystals only require a simple algorithm driven by natural law, but this is wholly inadequate for the construction of the complex sequencing of the genetic code.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

LSV,

I think it's probably worth having a look at the integrity of the guy whose article you cited. It seems about as credible as your own.

Phillip E. Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. The wikipedia entry on him describes him as "the father of the Intelligent Design movement".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

He is an AIDS denialist, it says. He has written (and of course he's know all about it, being a lawyer) that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Such concern for the lives and health of his fellow human beings over his own dogma. What a thoroughly benevolent chap.

Apparently has was "born again" after a divorce. Then he read The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, and it was THIS - not the Bible - which spurred him into his battle against science.

This man is also credited with having come up with the "wedge strategy" for opening the public mind up to supernaturalism in science using "an aggressive public relations strategy". Wilfully and knowingly misleading people, in other words.

Or lying, in one word.

In fact, so bad is this saviour of yours, LSV, the Wikipedia article cites a real biologist who fact-checked Johnson's books, Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. The reviewer, Brian Spitzer, argued that almost all the scientific material Johnson cited was either misused or distorted, "from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to outright fabrications".

Brian Spitzer described Darwin on Trial as the most deceptive book he had ever read. You can read his critique here: https://www.talkreason.org/articles/honesty.cfm

"I was naive," writes Spitzer. "I assumed that a Christian writing to other Christians would provide a scrupulously fair and accurate account of the facts. But the deeper I got into Darwin on Trial, the less naive I became. And the clearer it became that the driving force behind Johnson's book was neither fairness nor accuracy."

And LSV wants us to take this AIDS denying, lying lawyer seriously. Doesn't it stick in his craw that the lies of the movement to which he belongs are so easily exposed?

No, I would suggest not. Because he seems strangely proud of his lack of integrity. Lying for Jesus making his place in heaven all the more ensured.

Shameful.

LSV,

"Crystals only require a simple algorithm driven by natural law, but this is wholly inadequate for the construction of the complex sequencing of the genetic code."

Then you've clearly never done any organic chemistry synthesis, and complex molecules like DNA -do- assemble without any intelligent input; it happens in your body millions of times a day.

If you're suggesting that god set up the first principles from which all other copies were made... well that's an article of faith and has less supporting evidence than abiogensis. Your complexity argument only works if we're discussing the very first proteins and whilst your suggestion relies soley on faith, abiogenesis has some promising research avenues.

LSV,

The problem then is that you have basically said that intrusive evangelising , or more broadly intrusive proselytising is wrong when the people don't want to be preached to.

I agree with that but I am not sure I want to ban it, as long as I can tell them they are delusional wasters its ok. As long as we don't have blasphemy laws which allow people to be killed like in in Pakistan yesterday.

Natman (@ 50) -

Obviously you didn't read the article I linked to, which was looking at the concept of information, and, in particular algorithmic information theory.

Complex patterns can be created by a simple algorithm, such as the Mandelbrot set. This is a repetitive sequence, a method of generating order also characteristic of the formation of crystals. The information of the genetic code does not fall into this category of information, since it is algorithmically incompressible, a bit like the information in a library. A meaningless random sequence of letters is also algorithmically incompressible and therefore 'complex', but that is a different concept of complexity to that of the genetic code (or the Encyclopedia Britannica), which is semantic information - in other words, it has meaning.

The basic laws of nature - i.e. nature just left to itself - can only produce repetitive information, e.g. the kind of regular sequencing typical of the formation of a snowflake on the hexagonal lattice of the ice crystal molecule.

Since chance and the laws of nature are inadequate to create the genetic code, then clearly there is a further source of information. It is not necessary to understand how that source of information connects with physical nature in order to believe that its existence is necessary. You seem to be asserting that we are not allowed to believe in something unless we understand it perfectly, and can even observe it. It's strange how this rule is quickly broken when it comes to such constructs as 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'. These are inferred, but not observed. The same applies to the source of intelligence behind the genetic code.

Since science infers the existence of unobserved realities, it therefore follows that the 'intelligence' explanation is also scientific, unless of course 'science' is a synonymous with the 'philosophy of materialism', and then we are back into the realm of special pleading and fallacious reasoning.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

*Mods - If it's the AIDS denialism you're worried about, it is well documented - and it's quite easy to infer that this man put lives at risk by propagating that myth every bit as much as those who propagated the scare about the MMR vaccine, as has now been proven.

These things are easy to clarify.

unless of course 'science' is a synonymous with the 'philosophy of materialism', and then we are back into the realm of special pleading and fallacious reasoning.

Nope. Science is synonymous with the method of naturalism. I may have mentioned this before, about twelvety thrumpty times. Even if the Lennox and Discovery Institute inspired meaderings in 52 held any validity, a scientific conclusion could be that there is a law of nature pertaining to information that we know nothing about, or simply that we need to try harder to work things out. Science is still young, it doesn't claim to have all the answers or even claim it can ever know all the answers. It just claims it is worth looking, because anything else is just thinking hard and making stuff up, aka metaphysics.

But Johnson and the Discovery Institute boys want their metaphysics written into the practice of science. Theirs is a political struggle, which is why their methods are so dishonest.

AboutFace (@ 49) -

I've responded to this on the other thread, but I'll say something here...

You're just putting forward a tired ad hominem to avoid addressing the actual issue I raised.

OK, so if you are right about Johnson, then we agree that his views on various issues are obnoxious. Good. We agree. Joe Stalin's views were also totally obnoxious, but I'm jolly glad he fought against Hitler. If a person has to be purer than pure and whiter than white before we can agree with anything he says, then I'm not sure that anybody could agree with anybody else about anything! For goodness sake, man, do try to grow up. Your comments on this blog are utterly ridiculous.

Right, now that we have sorted that one out, you may want to respond to the actual issue I raised, or are you running scared?

LSV,

DNA is -not- random. It is formed by the recombination of a random selection of alleles from both parents, with perhaps on occasion the insertion of a mutation. Whilst the mutation might be random, and which alleles are from the mother and which are from the father is random, the creation of the new DNA strand is anything but, it contains an equal mix from both parents (in organisms like us anyway) collected together in well known biochemical processes.

Again, you display your ignorance of the subject matter, attempting to simplify a complex topic in an effort to make it fit better into your dogmatic 'goddit' approach.

If god sees fit to use algorithims for complexities like crystals and large organic molecules and, as it would seem, stand off from the situation, why can't you accept that for other things as well. And whilst you're on that thread, apply the whole concept of a god with no need for interaction and concede that the universe doesn't need a divinity to function. You've clearly accepted that god isn't need for everything.

And the link was from a creationist source. Their idea of 'science' is laughable at best, irritating wrong at worst. The crowbarring of information theory into genetic subjects is a poor tactic and easily refuted if you know your genetics (which you clearly don't).

When I need plumbing done, I call a plumber. When I need a house built, I use an architect and builder. Why every creationist Tom, Fred and Sally seems to think they can talk about highly complex biological science is beyond me. Evolution is easy to describe, but hard to understand.

Natman -

"When I need plumbing done, I call a plumber. When I need a house built, I use an architect and builder."

And when I want a bridge built, I call an engineer. When I want a drug synthesised, I call a chemist. When I want to gaze into the night sky, I may call an astronomer.

But when I want to understand what life is about, I do not call a scientist, because science has nothing to say about such matters. Science is highly limited and only applies to a part of reality.

Frankly it is beyond me why scientists think that they can study DNA and claim that "the universe is meaningless". How exactly do you derive that conclusion from the study of, for example, DNA? Barmy.

As for information theory, sorry, Natman, but genetics involves information. It doesn't matter what I am. Call me a clown from a travelling circus if you like. It doesn't alter the fact that what I have just said is true.

(Oh, and I can also do a bit of plumbing as well!)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Do we have a moderator sympathetic to our evangelicals perchance?

LSV,

Since when did science tell you what life is about, on a metaphysical level anyway? It can tell you how life originated, how it developed and even provide a purpose for why it continues, but finding meaning in life is something you have to figure out yourself.

I find it more than amusing that because science postulates the universe as chaotic, random and unguided, you seem to think this means meaningless. I'm sure you need the comforting guidance of a dogma to find meaning, but the rest of us grown-ups are quite capable of finding meaning for ourselves.

Creating strawmen is a poor debating tactic, LSV, I expected more from you.

"As for information theory, sorry, Natman, but genetics involves information."

Well done, obvious statement of the week. However genetics doesn't use information theory in the way the cDesign Propnentist crowd would like it to. If this is a allusion to your entropy arugment again, perhaps you'd be better answering the posts on that first.

Natman

A (first) point of clarification.

What is it you are saying about 'chaos' and 'meaninglessness'? Related? Unrelated? In what way?

And a point of clarification from me, I'm not saying that those who reject the notion of 'god/God' lead meaningless lives.

Peterm2,

Chaos - A very specific kind of unpredictability: deterministic behaviour that is very sensitive to its initial conditions. In other words, infinitesimal variations in initial conditions for a chaotic dynamic system lead to large variations in behaviour.

Meaningless- having no meaning or significance.

The two are not related, but chaos can be meaningless if it is given no purpose, and meaningless can often descend into chaos.

Oh how could I have missed post 52?! LSV goes on about a specific bit of science, i.e. how scientists have come to the idea that there must be dark matter and energy. And then trying to squeeze a case for god out of how they are not directly observable.

So lets look at one way scientists have come to think there is dark matter, the non-linear propagation of light. In the absence of gravity, light propagates in straight lines, but gravity can bend it. A clear demonstration is e.g. gravitational lensing, i.e. being able to see an object in space behind another heavy object because the heavy object bends the light passing by itself.

It has been observed that light passes through patches of space not in straight lines, even while there is no nearby baryonic matter (in laymans terms that is 'normal matter' like that which makes up stars) to bend its course. From which the tentative conclusion was drawn that there is other matter present that is of a different nature than the stuff we can see.

This idea is quite simple and has some basis going for it. Can you, LSV, present a similarly clear basis for god? All I see so far from you in this thread is the postulate 'It could not have happened without god' without much in favour of that faith position, while there is (yes, tentative in some ways) a ton of evidence that it can. You know, the stuff some of which has been pointed out to you, which you then ignored.

Care to try and present an as clear a case for god that is not contradicted by various different areas of science?

PK -

You've missed my point completely.

I was using dark matter as an example of a particular method of reasoning, namely, inferring the existence of something which is itself unobserved or unobservable. That method of reasoning is no different from someone inferring the existence of an intelligent creator - or cause - based on the empirical evidence of complexity.

So therefore if the inference of unobserved dark matter is deemed to be scientifically acceptable, it therefore follows (if intellectual hypocrisy is to be avoided) that the same method can be applied to other explanations.

Am I to assume that if someone comes up with an alternative explanation for the phenomena for which 'dark matter' is the current hypothesis, that the 'dark matter' explanation then becomes 'unscientific'? This seems to be the case concerning the 'intelligence' explanation for the existence of complexity. A double standard.

All I am pointing out is the inconsistency of reasoning among philosophical materialists.

(Also, the 'dark matter' hypothesis makes a mockery of the claims of empiricism, and implies that non-empirical explanations are valid. Thanks!)

As I thought, another area of science where you have little idea of what you're talking about. And as a bonus, you demonstrate not getting the overall picture either.

You are unable to distinguish between an explanation of the idea behind dark matter that has both some evidence in support of it and helps to explain things on the one hand, and a non-explanation that merely relabels 'I don't know' into 'god did it' and more importantly, is contradicted by loads of observations in different areas of science (excluding theistic evolution here).

So we had your claims about thermodynamics. You couldn't produce anything when challenged about them.

We had your claims about mathematics the other day. You couldn't produce anything when challenged about them.

And now we had your claims about dark matter and energy. And again you can't produce anything. And displaying a lack of understanding of science in general.

Let me guess what's next. Having had your ass kicked again, you will turn to 'evidence from reason', claiming victory without having to produce any tangible connection to reality. Even a pot of verbal diarrhea like Alister McGrath sees the limits of going purely by reason alone.

PK -

Goodness me, you are incredibly naive. Where have I ever said that I "go by reason alone"? One thing I have noticed about the atheists on this blog is that you love setting up false dichotomies (I assume you understand what that phrase means?). If I put an argument by referring to 'reason', you then interpret that to mean that I am relying on 'reason alone', as if everything else is stripped away.

Hey, I could say that you are relying on empiricism alone, couldn't I?

I have made a perfectly valid point, and yet again, you have failed to address it. You obviously don't understand the meaning of the verb 'to infer' and neither the verb 'to observe'. You are happy to infer the existence of something unobserved when it suits your philosophy, but then disallow others to do the same thing.

You are not acting like a true scientist. What you are is a devotee of the philosophy of scientism, which is not science, but superstition. A true scientist understands the limit of his subject. You naively think that studying nature can answer every question about reality.

Humbug.

By the way... what was wrong with my probability argument?

Answer: nothing.

PK -

"...a non-explanation that merely relabels 'I don't know' into 'god did it' and more importantly, is contradicted by loads of observations in different areas of science..."

Contradicted by loads of observations?

Such as?

Also... define the phrase 'non-explanation', please.

@LSV

Also, the 'dark matter' hypothesis makes a mockery of the claims of empiricism, and implies that non-empirical explanations are valid. Thanks.

Nope. Empiricism (and I'm not a defender of the strong philosophical version, as you know) claims that knowledge derives from sense experience. In other words, inferences have to made from sense experience. The dark matter hypothesis is inferred from observations and from other theories that in turn are derived from sense experience. A non empirical theory of dark matter would derive from some a priori assumption plucked out of nowhere. I'm sure Eunice could cobble one up for us involving lurve and the interconnectedness of all things . (Sorry Eunice, lurve you really.)

Backing up, yes, the inference that the empirical evidence of complexity can be explained by an intelligent creator is the same method. Then again, my dogs chasing a ball in the garden could be said to be the same method as this, but they've got a bit of work to do to achieve the same level.

The dark matter hypothesis, fitting in as it does with empirical observations and all the other well supported theories of science, has explanatory power. It is a link in an explanatory chain. But it is tentative, and if future empirical observations conflict with predictions made on the strength of it, it will be junked. The fact that it can be junked, is a strength.

The intelligence from complexity inference, on the other hand, is not part of a chain of explanation, or if it is, the other links in the chain come from unexplained sources. So the explanatory power is either low or non existent. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Grokesx: I'm not a cobbler!! lol And for what it's worth - knowledge does derive from sense experience but we are ignorant to some extent of the ability/power of our senses and the senses that are beyond the common five. I have not studied empiricism etc just coming at it from what I know to be true of the human person. We feel everything all of the time - yet how many people are aware of that, let alone use it? We also use the senses in ways that are beyond the literal meaning of course - something smells fishy etc .....so yes we need to deepen/expand our understanding of the senses. Bet you weren't expecting that now!

LSV,

"Where have I ever said that I "go by reason alone"?"

For example here, see your point 2 in that post. Evidence from reason, not reason informed by observation, but evidence from just reason. In fact, when Natman tells you that reason has to be informed by observation, you actually manage to argue against him. That makes for a very odd stance, an I'm glad you see the error of it.

"I have made a perfectly valid point, and yet again, you have failed to address it. You obviously don't understand the meaning of the verb 'to infer' and neither the verb 'to observe'. You are happy to infer the existence of something unobserved when it suits your philosophy, but then disallow others to do the same thing."

I did address it, and pointed out the difference of dark matter having evidence (yes, empirical evidence, here is a new, dry pair of pants for you) in favour of it, while your claims of equally good evidence for god again proved hollow when challenged. You really need to learn to accept that the moment your scientific claims start to make any connection to reality, you are hugely vulnerable. We saw this with your claims about thermodynamics, mathematics, and now dark matter.

But hey, the offer of two lollipops if you can provide some evidence is still there.

"You naively think that studying nature can answer every question about reality.

Citation needed. Where did I say that?

I'm afraid your attempt to falsely attribute that straw man to me means you forfeit your two lollipops for today. Sorry.

"By the way... what was wrong with my probability argument? Answer: nothing."

The main problem is that you didn't present any mathematical proof that you said you had.

"Contradicted by loads of observations? Such as?"

Such as that which I pointed out to you which you then ignored. You can't claim you never saw my post, since you did go into other bits I presented in there, such as the Miller experiment.

"Also... define the phrase 'non-explanation', please."

Since I, as a non-native English speaker, can undertand, I think so should you. Anyone else here have a problem with it?

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8556852.stm

Anti-Gay rights Senator Gay

As predictable as the sun rises in the east. Don't they realise by making such an issue of it, they've blown their cover way before they actually *come out*

Some seriously light relief!

My favourite: TEETH - Tried Everything Else, Try Homeopathy

;-)

Like the *digging for worms* one lol

Natman;

"DNA is -not- random. It is formed by the recombination of a random selection of alleles from both parents, with perhaps on occasion the insertion of a mutation. Whilst the mutation might be random, and which alleles are from the mother and which are from the father is random, the creation of the new DNA strand is anything but, it contains an equal mix from both parents (in organisms like us anyway) collected together in well known biochemical processes."

LSV Eindhoven's link to medical acronyms impells me to own that 'DNA' may as well stand for 'National Dyslexic Association' for all i know, but surely, when you talk about an "equal mix", this is somethiong that can only (and does only) occur at the single, precise moment of conception. If a human life begins at a later stage, wouldn't one expect the genetic make-up to be, as it were, "weighted" in favour of the mother accordingly? I only raise this subject again because it is a matter of life and death on which the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent and utterly defenceless human beings depend, and because abortion is one of the most repugnant injustices ever inflicted by humans on other humans.

Theophane,

Huh?

I said;

"...abortion is one of the most repugnant injustices ever inflicted by humans on other humans."

What i'm getting at, is that if the "humanity" of an embyo only develops by stages in the womb, wouldn't that imply a greater role for the genetic make-up of the mother, which of course we know is not the case?

Theophane,

Er. No.

I think you're confusing fetal biological development with psychology. No one (aside from you, just now) has ever suggested that a persons psyche has maternal genetic input after conception.

I really don't know what you're on about, to be honest.

77. At 06:09am on 09 Mar 2011, Theophane wrote:


"What i'm getting at, is that if the "humanity" of an embyo only develops by stages in the womb, wouldn't that imply a greater role for the genetic make-up of the mother, which of course we know is not the case?"
***************************
This is pretty easy to understand.All the genetic material that makes each one of us a unique human being is present from the moment of conception.A developing child in utero is an individual, not some sort of appendage of his or her mother.And in the case of a male child this is obviously true.

When do we "inherit" our "soul"? Answer me that someone. I'd really like to know because it seems of somewhat fundamental importance in Christianity and nobody can ever quite give me anything like a decent answer about it.

Yet according to Catholic doctrine, condoms and other birth control aren't condoned even though they prevent inception and no embryo or human is being killed . Prevented maybe- but no different from every other circumstance that prevent a couple making a baby. For example a terrorist killing one of the partners or a Priest abusing the natural inclination out of one of the partners towards the opposite sex. Or perhaps a couple being separated by economic circumstance to work and live in separate countries, or a couple being kept separate by some religious divide

mscracker,

"A developing child in utero is an individual..."

Technically, they're not. To be an individual would require some sense of autonomy and an embyro isn't that. A developing child in utero has more in common with a tapeworm or some other parasite (albeit with more potential) than being an individual.

@82:
Biologically speaking, they are a separate, human organism with unique DNA.They are dependent, being in the womb.After birth, human children are completely dependent & would die if left on their own.Dependency makes them no less human.
Comparing a developing child with a parasite is a rather frightening example of verbal engineering.Right in there with "pre-embryo" which serves to salve the consciences of cloning/stem cell research proponents.
Someone once said that verbal engineering must first precede social engineering.
@81:
I would be glad to share the Church's teaching behind Natural Family Planning.But I imagine that would be available more simply online through your local diocese.If not please let me know.

mscracker,

Comparing a developing child with a fully grown, highly capable human being is a rather frightening example of verbal engineering too, worse, it's romantising something beyond all proportions. At least comparing a non-viable embryo to a parasite is medically accurate.

Someone once said that... well, you know the rest.

What are you at conflating cloning with stem cell research and do you have the slightest idea of the massive benefits for real walking talking sentient people stem cell treatments hold out? At all?

Thought not.

@84:
Word play aside, it's simply a matter of human rights, from conception to natural death.When the sanctity of human life is broached things begin to unravel.A discarded embryo, an unwanted fetus, a disabled child-all are vulnerable to exploitation as are the incarcerated , mentally ill, & those in poverty.
Exploiting other human beings for medical/scientific experimentation, at any stage of life, is morally wrong.Be it prisoners, unborn children, mental hospital patients, whoever.Those who would benefit from the experimentation have always had a rationalization for their exploits & used euphimisms to legitimize their actions.

mscracker,

The difference is that an unborn child, before a certain point, is totally and utterly dependant on its host, ie - the mother. Therefore, the rights of the mother supercede that of the unborn. I'm not a fan of abortion on demand, nor do I condone late-term abortions, however, to place the mother at risk to salve the conscience of those who'd seek to romanatise the unborn is a folly. The same is said if the child, once born, would face pain, misery and suffering.

To equate abortion, and the use of emnbryonic stem cells, with human experimentation is highly dishonest and a strawmen of the highest calibre.

@87:
I disagree-as I imagine would be no surprise to you.From embryo to end of life is simply a continuum, biologically speaking.It has nothing to do with romance.Or, I suppose in a way it might follow romance, actually.But I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
The exploitation of human beings at any stage in life is wrong.I appreciate your thoughts on late term abortion,though.
I don't think it's peculiar to atheists, but there's an unfortunate side to the human condition where we perceive others as either useful in some practical way to us & society, or not.Those who are non-productive are afforded less respect & protection.Christians have no excuse for this attitude but my guess is that without a well formed conscience & a Judeo-Christian foundation it would be much easier to look at other human beings this way.Rather than see each of us as a unique child of God with inherent human rights.
But, all societies in all eras have been guilty of this in some fashion.We are simply sanatizing one form of exploitation now with biotech-speak.

That still doesn't make any impact in justifying your comments about stem cell research. You don't even make the important distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells, which is where some people see an ethical problem. Would you rather watch a close relative be ravaged by Parkinson's or MS because the treatment offered was stem cell derived? These are the areas (among many others such as spinal injury) where those treatments hold out promise.

Did you contribute on that public consultation on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill a couple of years ago, when Mark Durkan, then head of the SDLP, was able to write a full-page article in the Belfast Telegraph with such ludricrous, Frankenstein scaremongery as suggesting that its provisions would lead to human feotuses being developed in animal wombs for the purposes of what he called "scientific joyriding"?

No less qualified an individual than Iris Robinson was merrily sticking her oar in at that time too. There aren't enough voices opposing that kind of political misinformation loudly in Northern Ireland.

mscracker,

"Christians have no excuse for this attitude but my guess is that without a well formed conscience & a Judeo-Christian foundation it would be much easier to look at other human beings this way."

The two are not linked and you don't need a Judeo-Christian foundation to respect life. I don't see any fundamental militant Buddhists, do you?

"Rather than see each of us as a unique child of God with inherent human rights."

I find that statement highly hypocritical (although not from you personally). The Church, of all forms, religions and denominations, has a proven history of intolerance, torture, 'holy' wars and oppression. Yes, it has some amazing morals, their origins aside, but far, far too many use their religion as an excuse to act heinously against others.

About|Face, mscracker is from the States

@ 89:
I haven't had close family living in the North of Ireland for a very long time-they moved to the States(or Colonies, back then.)
I generally find myself agreeing to disagree with much of what is posted here but appreciate that you all voice your opinions intelligently.Sometimes a bit mean spirited, but always with intelligence & literacy.

@90:
You're quite right.Folks have used the excuse of religion to commit all sorts of offenses.But without a basic Judeo-Christian moral code we'd have a pretty frightening society.(It's fairly frightening as it stands.)

mscracker,

"...without a basic Judeo-Christian moral code we'd have a pretty frightening society."

Just like those heinous societies in the far-east and Africa with moral codes based on other religious, totally abhorrent with their disrespect and lack of humanity.

https://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/10/nebraska-abortion-law-tragic/

Comments?

Natman

That is a harrowing story. In this case the newborn lasted 15 minutes before dying, but I presume there will be cases when the newborn will gasp and struggle for longer.

It seems that there are religionists who see it as morally right to prolong the suffering of parents and also of babies that have no hope of surviving.

@94:
Which particular Asian & African societies did you have in mind?
@95:
I'm missing the controversy here-what is the problem in allowing a living child to be delivered naturally?

mscracker,

The child lived for about 15 minutes before suffocating, in great pain no doubt, because of underdeveloped lungs. The state would not allow her to have an abortion after 20 weeks even though the child -would- die after birth.

You don't see that as controversial?

Japan is the premier society that springs to mind.

Natman;

Isn't it reasonable to call into question the seriousness with which we can take your views, when within a few weeks (22 Feb) of saying...

"I would treat an animal with no less consideration than I would a human, but I don't think for one moment that an animal is equal to a human, on any scale you wish to measure. The same is true of embyros. It has potential, but until the stage that said potential can be realised it's just that."

...you say (above);

"A developing child in utero has more in common with a tapeworm or some other parasite (albeit with more potential) than being an individual."

You wouldn't, in fact, treat "a tapeworm or some other parasite", or actually any other animal, with the same consideration as you would another human - unless, through no fault of their own*, the human in question is less than some arbitrary number of days or weeks old. Here's a word that can be used to describe such an approach; it is "fascist". These attitudes, and the continued use of embryonic stem-cells when the progress of adult stem-cell research has completely obviated any need for it, fall into realm of "the lights of perverted science" described by Winston Churchill. They 'stem', at least partly, from the fashionable error, that as humans we are better off without any kind of religion - or at least any kind which has the temerity to lay down a difference between "right" and wrong". This might be called "the Dawkins Delusion".

*in case these words don't register; "through no fault of their own".

Just a thought, but mightn't Tottenham manager Harry Redknapp's comment after their Champions' League win on Ash Wednesday merit consideration as a "religion story"?

"I am not getting too carried away. I'm just looking forward to getting home and having a cup of tea and a bacon sandwich and taking the dogs out."

A bacon sandwich? Naturally, Mr Redknapp isn't bound by considerations of what is or isn't 'kosher', nor need he observe the fast requested of Catholics on Ash Wednesday - but couldn't he have been a bit more sensititive to the customs of a sizeable contingent of Tottenham supporters?