Will Evolution Weekend Sermons Discuss Alleged Murderer Amy Bishop?

scordova @153,

Do you approve of quoting an author out of context for the purposes of character aspersion? Yes, if done for humor like: I beat a puppy simply, I believe, from enjoying the sense of power. Charles Darwin aspersion: 1 : a sprinkling with water especially in religious ceremonies 2 a : a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation b : the act of making such a charge : defamation

So by your actions, you're permitting us to defame you provided it's funny? Toronto

Do you approve of quoting an author out of context for the purposes of character aspersion?

Yes, if done for humor like:

I beat a puppy simply, I believe, from enjoying the sense of power. Charles Darwin

Darwin does not deserve to be de facto cannonized in churches by the Clergy Letter project.

Do you approve of trying to make a theory seem wrong by attacking the person who came up with it rather than providing evidence that it’s wrong?

No I don't approve of that, and if you are accusing me of that you're accusing me something that is not happening in this thread. Criticizing Darwin's character and life have nothing to do with weighing the merits or demerits of his theory. That is not my purpose in showing Darwin's less flattering side or that of Darwinists like Amy Bishop. He and his ideas are being venerated in churhes, and I'm showing that this is objectionable for a variety of reasons. That's all. His theories will die on their own scientific demerits. I've criticized his theory on scientific ground many times. And if you're unable to grasp the the theoretical and empirical problems with Darwinism, that is your issue not mine. Your lack of comprehension of the problems with Darwinism doesn't give you liscense to accuse me of resorting to character assasination as a means of discrediting his supposed "science". scordova

Sal, I disapprove of such name-calling. Now let me ask you another question: Do you approve of quoting an author out of context for the purposes of character aspersion? Do you approve of trying to make a theory seem wrong by attacking the person who came up with it rather than providing evidence that it's wrong? Retroman

Lute, Good to see you on UD again. Upright BiPed

The Clergy Letter Project has finally removed Amy Bishop’s name from their rolls. Yesterday, it read: “872 scientists” now it reads “871 scientists” With Amy Bishop’s name removed.

Hmmm...this is interesting (he said, wryly). Is Michael Zimmerman, the head of the Project, confusing “is” with “ought?” Just because she stands accused of murder doesn’t detract from her knowledge of neo-Darwinism or her ability to help clergy become more scientifically literate, does it? After all, she’s not standing by to assist clergy with moral dilemmas, right? She’s just there to give clergy a better understanding of “what is,” if I understand correctly. Besides, isn’t she entitled to be considered innocent of the charges against her until proven guilty? So in removing her from the list, why wouldn’t Dr. Zimmerman be considered as “crass and insensitive” as he accused Bantay of being? If she was worthy of being “on call” to help clergy understand neo-Darwinism on February 11, why would she be unworthy of being on call today? Again: all this is completely orthogonal to any considerations about morality, right? The list is there to demonstrate that “science” can be “ fully harmonious with religious faith,” right? (Removing tongue from cheek now…) Lutepisc

Whether or not biologists and bloggers use the same tactics has nothing to do with the current discussion.

So do you disapprove of PZ Myers referring to me as a Slimy little Sewer Goblin. Or do you approve? scordova

I shot a bird as a kid.

I once (ok serval times) ate McDonald's chicken McNuggets made from birds that were supposedly killed. scordova

Retro, You completely misunderstand. I am not covering for Sal, nor do I give a flying shit about Charles Darwin shooting a bird as a kid. I shot a bird as a kid. When I got over to it, it was dead, and that particular childhood thrill was over. What I do find interesting is the self-rightous display when materialists form groups, organize national associations, stack peer-review, conduct e-mail campaigns, circle the legal wagons, and build websites for the sole purpose of assassinating the charater of anyone who would dare have the unmitigated temerity to question them in light of the observable evidence, then go into apoplectic shock if someone spits back. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed @141,

Yes Retro, malicious character assassination and guilt by association are tactics only those evil Jesus people employ.

You seem to be justifying one's behavior based on someone else's behavior. According to bible teachings, if a husband commits adultery, is his wife allowed a free affair? Toronto

Upright BiPed, your tu quoque attempt to distract from Sal's tactics is ineffective. Whether or not biologists and bloggers use the same tactics has nothing to do with the current discussion. Someone else's misdeeds don't discourage yours. In fact, such a blatant fallacy is disappointing. This thread seems full of them. Retroman

Cabal, No need to live with regret. I am not sure its selected for anyway. http://www.rsternberg.net/BSG.htm Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed, I regret being so stupid, your reply made it clear to me that Sternberg's background and religious beliefs have absolutely nothing with his scientific views to do. It just so happens that science says creationism is true and Sternberg's scientific integrity in accepting that is unrelated to his faith in the Bible. His faith is residing in a different compartment. Cabal

Yes Retro, malicious character assassination and guilt by association are tactics only those evil Jesus people employ. Darwinists, members of their national marketing arm, biology professors, and ideological bloggers would never stoop so low. Just ask Behe. Upright BiPed

Hilarious. My heart goes out to the poor receptionist at the Darwinian Marketing Department. Just when the phone stopped ringing off the wall because evil Sal was caught painting outside the lines, deep-thinking Cabal shows up to blow the cover story. After all, stupid Sternberg went to a college that was named after somebody. Upright BiPed

Sal said: "Finally, look at how the Clergy Letter labels those who disagree with Darwin as ignorant and almost sinners. It seems like it is almost a creed" Some of those who "disagree with Darwin" quote out of context for the malicious purpose of character assassination and to employ guilt-by-association tactics. This is essentially bearing false witness, and bearing false witness is indeed a sin. Retroman

One other thing, I take issue with the Clergy Letter Project’s insinuation that people who disagree with Darwin are somehow deficient in reconciling science and religion, when in fact someone’s scientific conscience might be the cause of the opposition for Darwinism. This is definitely the case with evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg.

I am sorry but I find it extremely difficult to believe that, considering things like his role in the Stephen C. Meyer publication and his affiliation with the Baraminology Study Group, Bryan College, Tennessee ("Bryan" after William Jennings Bryan, defence for the creationists in the Scopes trial http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/menk.htm ) http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36813 dealing with such interesting scientific subjects as The Serpent in Genesis 3:15 is a Snake Kennard Genesis Kinds: Creationism and the Origin of Species: Proceedings of the Eighth BSG Conference ed. Sanders Baraminic Distance, Bootstraps, and BDISTMDS Wood Frontiers in Creation Research: Proceedings of the Seventh BSG Conference ed. Sanders All Creation Groans: Proceedings of the Sixth BSG Conference ed. Sanders Bishop John Wilkins, F.R.S. (1614-1672) and his discussion of Noah's Ark Wood Cabal

This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection. Charles Darwin

Darwin doesn't appreciate the irony of his statement. He argues that the existence of suffering is evidence against the existence of an intelligent agency having influence on the world. Yet consider if one said, "Darwin acts cruelly by savagely shooting birds for his own entertainment, therefore an intelligent being like Darwin doesn't exist." One would think that is a ridiculous argument. Darwin doesn't realize he's relying on an comparably flimsy argument against design, namely one which says: "cruelty exists in the world, an intelligent agency can't be responsible for such cruelty, therefore an intelligent agency that created the world doesn't exist." He decides to shoot birds and then says the existence of cruelty originates better from a theory of selection than a theory of intelligence. He is an excellent counter example to his own theory. Personally, I think the Intelligent Designer can inflict quite a bit of pain on humanity. One might conclude that the Intelligent Designer doesn't care (that is another discussion), but the mere existence of cruelty doesn't argue against intelligent design any more than Darwin's cruelty to birds argues against the existence of Darwin's intelligent mind or Darwin's intelligently designed actions (like aiming a gun in order to kill a bird). The irony there is rich. Which leads me to criticize The Clergy Letter project:

numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.

It is not fully harmonious with religious faith if the faith is inspired by the design argument, or if the faith rejects Darwin's claims, or if Darwin's claims are scientifically and logically wrong (and I have just demonstrated some of Darwin's illogic). Darwin's own words suggests he does not view his theory of natural selection as compatible with certain religious views (like those that are sympathetic to the design argument). That the Clergy Letter Project prominently displays his picture as some hero of faith seems out of place in light of Darwin's own views. Finally, look at how the Clergy Letter labels those who disagree with Darwin as ignorant and almost sinners. It seems like it is almost a creed:

We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. Clergy Letter Project as signed by certain Christian Churches

scordova

when in fact someone’s scientific conscience might be the cause of the opposition for Darwinism. This is definitely the case with evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg.

One may still consider that something is wrong with his science. BTW, everything's OK with your scientific attempts? osteonectin

One other thing, I take issue with the Clergy Letter Project's insinuation that people who disagree with Darwin are somehow deficient in reconciling science and religion, when in fact someone's scientific conscience might be the cause of the opposition for Darwinism. This is definitely the case with evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg. scordova

But don’t expect to read about Sal mentioning this obvious contradiction to his detestable ad hominem.

But where have I said that belief in Darwinism necessarily makes someone a killer? I don't believe that. I object to the veneration of Darwin (a professed enemy of the Christ), especially in churches claiming Christ's name. This is not a scientific discussion but a cultural one. Debra was heroic. But I'll be sure to point out that Amy Bishop was also on the Clergy Letter Project list lest Clergy Letter Project tries promote the fact Moriarty is on their list as well. Cancer may be an empirical fact, but no need to venerate it in churches. Even if natural selection, as Darwin conceives of it, is fact, no need to venerate his ideas in church any more than we'd venerate the empirical facts of disease. The Clergy Letter Project attempts to venerate someone who has a rather low opinon of Christianity and religion. I'm only pointing out the irony that they are trying to inspire their parishioners to appreciate science by venerating not only a suspect idea, but a rather nasty one if true. The Christian Churches among the Clergy Letter Project could decide of course to withdraw their affiliation with Christendom, and I'll have much less issue with them at that point. The UU's, I have less issue with.

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. Charles Darwin

scordova

The Triple Axle is a jump in Olympic figure skating, once thought to be impossible (it involves doing three and a half rotations in the air). And, indeed, this thread (and it's author) now holds the new Olympic record for the most despicable exploitation of human tragedy for propaganda purposes at UD to date. By the way, the woman who stopped Amy Bishop from shooting any more of her colleagues at UAH (Dr. Debra M. Moriarity) is also on the Clergy Letter List: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/alabama-university-shooting-hero-professor-stop-amy-bishop/story?id=9849055 But don't expect to read about Sal mentioning this obvious contradiction to his detestable ad hominem. Allen_MacNeill

efren ts, I don't know what the Triple Axle is, but looks like you got it.. zeroseven

How come you have so much against a great scientist and author like Darwin? Didn’t he accomplish anything, why still all the flak and ridicule 150 years later?

Hiram Caton's litany of what Darwin wrongly gets credit for (with Denyse's comments):

Belief that the Origin was a 'revolutionary' scientific breakthrough conflicts with the fact that public opinion was at the time saturated by the evolution idea. It was so widespread that in 1860 the showman P T Barnum put on display a freak, Zip the Pinhead, alleged to be the 'missing link' between apes and humans. In the Historical Sketch preface to the Origin, Darwin acknowledged 34 prior evolutionists. [When I was in school 45 years ago, we learned that Evolution was a big, general idea in mid-nineteenth century Britain. It wasn't until I had to listen to wearisome rants by new atheists and Darwin lobbyists seeking funds that I discovered that Darwin had invented the idea.] ++The natural selection principle was not Darwin's world-changing discovery. It was first stated in 1831 by Patrick Matthew and was independently discovered in 1836 by Darwin's colleague, Edward Blyth. Herbert Spencer came close to a formulation in 1852, and Alfred Russel Wallace formulated it in 1858. Aware that natural selection did not explain racial variation, Darwin devised sexual selection as a supplementary principle. [And we know where that led. To all kinds of silliness, actually. = "You cheatie on your sweetie because of your 'selfish genes'" - classic, stupid Valentines Day story] ++The Origin did not found modern biology. By 1850 it was a thriving cluster of cell biology sciences whose leaders were Matthias Schleiden, Theodor Schwann, Louis Pasteur, Rudolph Vircow, and Robert Koch. Darwin, a naturalist, was not involved in this research mode. His unfamiliarity with cell biology is manifest in his Pangenesis theory of the basis of organisms. Conversely, evolution did not become a parameter of experimental biology until August Weismann set out his germ plasm theory of inheritance in 1884. ++The Origin did not instigate a 'revolutionary' disruption of science from religious belief. That antagonism became a major cultural force thanks to the French Revolution. Utilitarianism, positivism, and socialism were the main drivers. By the 1830s these secularists began to add evolution to their rebuttals of religious beliefs. By 1860 this position was widespread throughout Europe and Latin America. Conversely, numerous scientists and clergy believed in the compatibility of science and religious faith, including the discoverer of the first quantitative biological laws, Gregor Mendel. [Well, Mendel was a monk, right? I suppose he must have thought that the laws of inheritance were compatible with being a good Catholic ... otherwise .. ?] ++The Origin did not set out a single paleontological sequence of evolved species. Reason: methods for empirical analysis of fossil evidence were meager, a predicament that remained until the 1890s. The discovery of the Burgess Shale fossil deposit in 1909 could have supported a blossom of paleontology, yet that did not happen for another half century. The rudimentary level of human paleontology is expressed in the acceptance, in 1912, of the Piltdown Man as a genuine fossil. The hoax was not exposed until 1953. [Hiram, I have always wondered about the fact that the Piltdown hoax took so long to be exposed, because a smart high school student could have exposed it. I casnnot believe that many people did not know. A sociologist might be able to explain why it was so important to keep the fraud going. Steve Fuller? ] ++Although Darwin opposed slavery from an early age, he did not believe in racial equality. In the Descent of Man and in correspondence, he arranged humanity in a hierarchy, with Caucasians at the top, and he believed that the extinction of 'lower races' was on course and would continue. This widely-shared view was integral to Euro-American imperial domination. Abraham Lincoln is among the anti-slavery proponents who so believed. Post-Civil War America imposed segregation on the freed blacks and Amerindians, while imperial powers treated colonial subjects in that vast empire as inferiors. ++The only application of evolutionary theory with practical effect was eugenics, devised by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Three of his sons were dedicated to the cause, and one, Leonard, was the long-term President of the Eugenics Society who claimed to advance his father's views. He was also patron of a key figure in the creation of neo-darwinism, R A Fisher, who also supported eugenics. [indispensable reading follows:] Charles Robert Darwin www.darwin-legend.org a.. The Darwin Legend b.. Getting Our History Right - Six Errors about Darwin and His Influence c.. The Origin of the Origin of Species: Revolution or More of the Same? d.. Darwin's Illness e.. The Syllabus of Errors f.. Darwin's Cathedral g.. Three Minilegends h.. Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln and Race i.. Darwin's Biggest Fib j.. Soren Lovtrup's Rebuttal of Darwinism k.. Review of Carroll's On the Origin of Species l.. Review of Mayr's One Long Argument m.. Review of Dempster's study of Patrick Matthew [Well, thanks, Hiram! I don't expect to see this on typical school curricula, which are still fronting Darwin legends and vilifying anyone who doubts them.

scordova

Of course it all brings up the question of whether Darwin’s character has anything to do with evolutionary theory.

Darwin's character doesn't have anything to do with the correctness (or lack thereof) of his theories. However, it does have bearing on whether he should be venerated in churches as if he were some saint or held up for society as some example for kids. Here is how Darwin Day is to be celebrated according to some: How to Celebrate Darwin Day

Be a naturalist for a day or longer. Go for a nature walk and study everything you see. Draw pictures of leaves and trees in a notebook and look them up when you go home. Watch any animals you see and track their behaviors. Learn about the wondrous world around you and see what surprises it has in store for you. Step 2 Darwin Day partyHold a birthday party. Have fun with Darwin Day by throwing a birthday party in Darwin's honor. Have cake, decorate, the whole nine yards. Make up party games about Darwin's life and give everyone fossils as party favors. Check out a few of the Darwin Awards on the computer and guess what will happen to the people before you finish the story. The person closest to the manner of demise, is the winner. Just have fun with it. Step 3 Origin of the SpeciesRead the Origin of Species. If you haven't already done this, or it's been a while, read the book that changed the world and rewrote our idea of human history. It's a great read and much more interesting than you would normally think. Everyone knows about the finches and tortoises that he saw and discussed, but there is a lot of stuff that Darwin talked about that you may not know. Step 4 Galapagos Island IguanaEducate your children about evolution and the world around them. • Print out some coloring pages and games for your kids and discuss the different species shown on the pages. • Look for pictures of tortoises, finches, llamas, and other species that Darwin saw aboard the Beagle and talk to your children about why he thought they were important and how they've evolved to match their environments. • Get the kids thinking by having them try and think up traits that the animals have that relate to their homes. • Challenge the older ones to come up with as many evolutionary traits as possible. Step 5 One of Darwin's finchesVisit the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco and see Darwin's finches. The CalAcademy has the actual finch specimens that Darwin collected on his visit to the Galapagos Islands on display in their new museum, which is worth a look anyways. Step 6 A wonderful Natural History MuseumVisit a natural history museum near you. Go by yourself or with children and see what exciting things there are in the world now and in the past. If you have children with you, make a game wherein everyone tries to point out at least one evolutionary trait on each animal. On whales, it could be the vestigial legs, on ammonites, it could be how they changed from a curved suture pattern to a wavy one. Step 7 Darwin lectureSee if there are any lectures going on at your neighborhood college. Many colleges and universities are holding lectures about Darwin and his Theory of Evolution in celebration of Darwin's legacy. Step 8Watch Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life. First airing on February 9th on BBC, this one-hour special, hosted by David Attenborough, spotlights nature and how evolution is evident all around us, as well as discussing many of the perceived obstacles to evolution. See additional resources for a link to the trailer. Step 9 Endangered TortoiseFinancially adopt a Galapagos species such as a tortoise. This is a great way to honor Charles Darwin's memory while at the same time helping the world around us. These endangered animals need help and donating to their care will help rescue their species from extinction. Step 10 Darwin statueParticipate in some of the Darwin Day events. Check out the Darwin Day Celebration link below to see if there are any events in your area in honor of Darwin's birth. Cities all over the world are celebrating the birth of Charles Darwin this year. There have been songs written in his honor. Museums and institutes of higher learning are holding lectures and seminars about him and his legacy. There are probably a few Darwin Day events located near you. Step 11 The beautiful Galapagos IslandsTake a trip to the Galapagos Islands. This is a great excuse for a trip there. Where better to honor Charles Darwin's memory than to visit the epitome of his voyage of knowledge. It was at the Galapagos that Darwin put together the pieces and realized what he was seeing.

I can't remeber any other scientist venerated in this way. Why wouldn't it be more in Darwin's steps to do some of what he did?

1. Get a gun and shoot birds like Darwin did just for fun "I do not believe that anyone could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds" --Darwin 2. lie for the thrill of it like Darwin did as kid (and likely as an adult) 3. beat puppies like Darwin did when he was boy

Regretably, it looks like the Darwin Day Slayer, Amy Bishop had her own ideas of how to spend Darwin Day. scordova

In the past on UD, when the religiously-oriented became a little too talkitive for his taste, Dave Scott use to remind them that "people in glass houses..." You might want to keep the general idea in mind. When motive mongering and willfull misprepresentation are the key pillars of the Anti-ID Marketing Campaign, you might want to keep you disdain in check. Upright BiPed

"...it all brings up the question of whether Darwin’s character has anything to do with evolutionary theory. It doesn’t." Ah yes...but does the character or private life of, say, Bill Dembski have anything to do with ID theory? The answer coming from the Entrenched is "Hell Yes!" It's a refrain that has been sung more times, in more ways, than can possibly be counted. How about Micheal Behe? How about Thaxton? How about Gonzales? How about Kenyon? How about Meyer? How about the members of the Dover school board? The unabashed twisting of words, the misrepresentation of arguments, the motive mogering, the out-and-out lying that materialist ideologues have heaved onto, say, Micheal Behe is pathetic. The double standard is so thick it is impossible to miss. Upright BiPed

Sal said: "Because it seemed more relevant than this one: I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement Charles Darwin" Wow, what a non-sequitor. Of course the only thing relevant about what you quoted was the word "shooting," which you took egregiously out of context, and you know it. You then said: "It is merely pointing out I don’t think the guy was on the up and up. Ted Haggard and Jim Bakker disgraced Evangelicals. I don’t get bent out of shape when their character is criticized. I join in." Except that people criticize Haggard and Baker for legitimate things. You have to stoop to quoting Darwin out of context, struggling to find anything to criticize him about. It's a fundamentally dishonest activity that you're engaging in, and you should be ashamed, if you have any concern for morals. Of course it all brings up the question of whether Darwin's character has anything to do with evolutionary theory. It doesn't. No one believes evolution because Darwin proposed it; they believe it based on evidence. You try to weasel out of this bad logic by stating that your real purpose is to get people to stop honoring Darwin. Of course your real purpose is to try to cast aspersions on the theory of evolution through guilt by association tactics. Again, you fool no one. Retroman

Darwin took and received credit for ideas that weren’t his. His conduct doesn’t necessarily mean evolutionary theoreis are wrong, but it does cast doubt on how much he should be receiving credit. I certainly don’t think churches should be honoring him!!!!

How come you have so much against a great scientist and author like Darwin? Didn't he accomplish anything, why still all the flak and ridicule 150 years later? Seems he must have made a lasting impact. None of us have, or ever will. Cabal

Allen MacNeill:

Sal, it seems difficult to believe, but you have stooped even lower with comment #116.

Personally, I am holding out to see if he quotes Darwin (out of context, of course) about beating a puppy. It would be the Triple Axel of quote mines. I don't believe one has ever been landed in competition before. efren ts

Hmm, I'd like to see a quote from Abraham Lincoln as to the inferiority of non-Caucasoids. Did Lincoln ever say anything in regard to Darwin's "Origin of Species"? Lincoln lived six years past the publication date---so did he in any way agree? or did his respect for the Scriptures preclude such? or do we know? Rude