Darwin Worship Adopted by the Church of Anything Goes

_{March 28, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Jack Krebs is crowing about a class on Darwinian dogma put on in conjunction with the Unitarian Universalist “Church”. He plans on preaching to the choir.

The Universalist Unitarian Church is composed of (multiple answers were allowed in the survey so it adds up over 100%)

humanist (54%)
agnostic (33%)
earth-centered (31%)
atheist (18%)
Buddhist (17%)
pagan (13%)
Christian (13%)

You can believe anything or nothing in this so-called “church”. What a coup for Jack Krebs and Kansas Citizens for Science to have the backing of a local UUC congregation. We should start worrying now I guess. 😛

So confident is Jack that he says of the class he’s teaching

ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s intended to help the average person who accepts evolution understand it better.

In other words he’s preaching to the choir. I mean literally preaching the pseudo-religious Darwinian dogma in conjunction with a pseudo-religious church to people who already have psuedo-religious faith in the Darwinian narrative but hope to find a rational basis for their Darwinian pseudo-religion.

Jack Krebs, what a maverick you are! 😆

Comments

The samurai of Japan followed Bushido, the way of the warrior. It was a blending of Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto. Buddism did not make any kind of impact in Japan until well after the age of the samurai. You are probably thinking of the Shaolin Monks of China, where Zen Buddism was born as an off shoot of Buddism and stressed martial arts as discipline and self defense as a last measure.

Buddism is probably the only religion that has not had major wars waged in it's name, unlike Islam, Chirstianity, and even the various flavors of Paganism.

In what way is Buddism not a religion?
God only knows how many words have been expended in argument over whether Zen is Buddhism. Regardless, a large number of people deem it so. I didn't say Buddhism wasn't a religion. I said Universal Unitarianism is a psuedo-religion. Individual members may or may not be religious. Since UUC claims somewhere just south of 20% of its members are atheists and 13% are Chrisitans it's difficult to view it as any kind of church since the members have diametrically opposed religious beliefs without either conflicting with UUC doctrines. The UUC is more of a human rights organization. Their beliefs read exactly like a political platform or a preamble to a constitution. They worship nothing in particular. Buddhists have recognizable supernatural beliefs like rebirth, a recognizable godhead in Buddha, consistent rituals, ceremonies, devotions, chantings, offerings, and etcetera. -ds Dexceus_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Unitarian Universalism is a religion about what you do, not what you believe. UUs do have some beliefs on common, though. One of the main ones is respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person. That's why we'd never try to tell someone whether or not they are a religion. Another of our principles is respect for the interdependent web of which we are a part. That's where evolution comes in.
That's an awfully loose definition of religion. What wouldn't be a religion under that definition? If me and bunch of my friends want to worship poker and Monday night football can we have a tax exempt church for it? Get real. -ds MrsCogan_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Most words that we use to classify belief systems have a gradient of meaning. folks have a natural tendency to employ the most convenient definition, broad to narrow, that suits their argument. If we are going to discuss religious views, lets call people "Christians" or "Buddhists" only if they sincerely attempt to follow the teachings of the originator of each faith(?), as they are recorded. Interestingly, most non-christians instinctively know when a 'Christian' is violating the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. So when we say 'Christians murder folks' lets go ahead and agree that if they are following Christ they wouldn't do these things, so there's a good chance they're not 'Christians' at all. I cannot accuse sincere Buddhists of things that people do who are only calling themselves such out of political or social convenience.
Christians aren't perfect nor do they need to be. Even Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart. That's what forgiveness and salvation is all about. Buddhists aren't any better. No one is perfect. Next! -ds kvwells_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

So if Intelligent Design is all about science and not religion, please explain to me all the fuss about what constitutes a "real" church.
If evolution is all about science what's up with the Clergy Letter Project? I'm trying to figure out why Darwinists are doing their recruiting in churches now. The schools aren't enough? They want the respectability of God without actually respecting God? The Unitarian Universalist Church is just like that. -ds Dartos_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

ds,
no Christian should even dare to criticize Buddhism for anything even misconstrued as a history of violence. Shame, shame, shame. History betrays you.

Ignorance of the history of various Buddhist sects is no excuse for denying it when it's pointed out to you, Sartori. There are totally non-violent Christian sects too and Christ is all about non-violence - love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, thou shalt not kill, and etcetera are themes taught both by Christ and Buddha. Some Christians even insist that following Christ means you can't eat meat because that entails killing. There's no record of Christ ever killing anything. The most violent thing he did was curse a fig tree and he didn't eat meat until (arguably due to translation issues) after the resurrection when he ate a piece of broiled fish to prove to his disciples he was truly risen from the dead and not an immaterial apparition. So you see, your initial claim that Buddhism is the only non-violent major religion is a crock of BS. -ds
satori_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Thanks for your comment about me and point 6, Dave. Is there any chance you will let the comment I posted this morning go through? or a portion of it.

As always, you can email me at jkrebs@sunflower.com to discuss things.

Jack
Sure, just as soon as I can put comments under your article at Panda's Thumb. Let me know when that becomes possible. -ds Jack Krebs_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Thanks again DaveScot.

I say there are serious problems with people who use evolution #5 as their definition and deny Intelligent Design. THAT is why evo #6 can't go away. It goes, ID enters. And we knoiw that ain't about to happen anytime soon. However it would be a good thing if people spoke out against it, but we know what happens to those people- ask Frncis B...

Perhaps Jack could present the following:

Biological evolution- what is being debated?:

The debate isn't as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don't seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don't appear to understand the issue. The TE's I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE's are closet IDists.)

Creationists go with 1-4 (above- see comment 3)), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW lifeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.

With Creation vs. "Evolution #6" the 4 main debating points are clear:

1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)
2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).
3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from "simpler" bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)
4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.

With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: LifeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more Ã¢â‚¬Å“simpleÃ¢â‚¬Â viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.

IDists understand that if life didn't arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose soley due to those type of processes (point 1 in comment 3).

What does the data say? Well there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything...

What does the data say? Well there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Agreed. Since my belief is #5 I recognized the need for an explanation that fits the known facts. My explanation is that the universal common ancestor was not a simple genome like that of modern bacteria but rather a genome that was packed with all the information it needed to blossom into the diversity we observe living today and extinct forms in the fossil record. In other words phylogeny mirrors ontogeny where both begin with a single undifferentiated cell that is programmed to unfold and diversify into complex assemblages of specialized cells. The major difference is the timescale. A human being goes from a single undifferentiated cell to a complex assemblage of trillions of specialized cells in a matter of months. There is nothing random about ontogeny. Life on earth underwent a similar process except instead of months the timescale was billions of years. I think it was billions of years only because living things had to shape the environment for the progression. The first major task was oxygenating the atmosphere so that faster air-breathing metabolisms could be expressed. The so-called Cambrian explosion seems to mark that stage of front-loaded evolution. -ds
Joseph_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Joseph

Jack posted a link to his source material. The definition of evolution they use is:

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

This appears to correspond to #5 in your list. This is a bit stale and should read "one or a few common ancestors" to accomodate Doolittle, Woese, and others who argue for more than one common ancestor and gene sharing very early in evolution to explain the virtually universal genetic code. Otherwise I don't particularly have a problem with that definition and neither does ID theory. Definition 6 is the one that leaves the realm of science to become nothing more than a plea for atheism.

Jack Krebs has stated before he doesn't agree with definition 6 and I'd have a bit of respect for the Darwin apologists if they'd explicitely denounce #6 as unsupported by the evidence and outside the scope of science and denounce it in high school biology classes for the general population who'll never study evolution any further than that. Of course that would mean alienating the positive atheists who make up the vast majority of the National Academy of Sciences so it just isn't going to happen without a fight.
DaveScot_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Thanks to Barry for the link to that article, never woulda thought of that one m'self...
Always did wonder (sort of) what Universal Unitarians were...now I know, now I wonder how this can be accorded the status of religion, but I am obviously and admittedly biased

Presly-tarians ... chuckle ... I like it
If you follow the wiki link you'll find that Carolyn Keeton [Rylander] Strayhorn (Texas Comptroller) had the same sentiment and yanked their tax exempt status in Texas. There must be some politically-connected UUC members because she quickly reversed her own action. I wonder too. It seems like a social club for new age liberals - definitely not a church. -ds carbon14atom_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

jasonng,

Are you really criticizing Buddhists? How can Christians be so sensitive and insult other religions at the same time? Don't you know Buddhists are about the only major world religion where people don't massacre each other?
Zen Buddhism is the religion of the Japanese Samauri who are pretty darn far removed from the set of people who don't massacre each other. -ds satori_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s intended to help the average person who accepts evolution understand it better. I guess that all depends on what one means by evolution. The meanings of evolutiom, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education: 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Blind watchmakerÃ¢â‚¬Â thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. I would understand evos 5 & 6 better if there were any data demonstrtating that bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria...Joseph_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

A church that has more Buddhists than Christians? They might as well call it the Non-Religious Meeting Building.jasonng_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Maybe they can have joint services with the "Presly-tarians." See: http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20010107/LI_001.htmBarryA_{March 27, 2006
March
03
Mar
27
27
2006
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply