Darwinist Jerry Coyne refuses to discuss origin of life in person with maverick rabbi; claims he oppresses women

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 25, 2012

Intelligent Design, News, Origin Of Life}

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

Rabbi Moshe Averick, author of The Confused, Illusory World of the Atheist , tells us the sad story of the “Orthodox Rabbi vs. Atheistic Biologist Who Won’t Put his Money Where his Mouth is: A History.” The “atheist bigot”in the story is surprise, surprise gnu atheist Jerry Coyne (“Why Evolution Is True”):

I have some very sad news to report…Dr. Jerry Coyne (Zealous Atheist – Professor of Biology at the U. of Chicago), and I (Orthodox Rabbi – Fearless Crusader for Belief in God and Spirituality)…are breaking up. I know it’s hard to believe, but our passionate, tempestuous, whirlwind affair has come to an end. In his final letter to me Jerry wrote: “I’m done with Averick, and certainly will not accept his invitation to meet and discuss whether God created the first organism.” The hottest love has the coldest end – Socrates

Regular readers will remember that Moseh Averick’s key issue is the non-science around the origin of life. His sparring with Coyne on that topic can be viewed here (“An Open Letter to Dr. Jerry Coyne, from the Maverick Rabbi”), here (“Should Darwin’s defender Jerry Coyne get silver medal for “sheer crudeness”?”), and here (“Reb Moshe Averick, skeptic of nonsense marketed as science, mixes it up again with Jerry “Why Evolution Is True” Coyne”), for example.

So, what ha-a-a-a-ppened? Why are we deprived, with no apparent just cause, of our regular dose of Maverick? Well, after a discussion of numerous occasions on which Coyne found it hard to understand why an intelligent Jewish person would disagree with him,

9. 12/22/11 – (Don’t worry we’re almost finished) I offer to bury the hatchet and hold out the peace-pipe to Dr. Coyne with: Dr. Jerry Coyne: My Culturally-Jewish, Atheistic, Biologist Bro’ at the University of Chicago: “It does not seem to me that a simple disagreement about the origin of life should be cause for me and Dr. Coyne to be at each others throats. Jerry, I am respectfully answering your challenge and would like to “come at you bro.” Let’s stop fighting over the internet and meet in person and have a mature, civil discussion about Origin of Life….The more I think about it the better it sounds. After all, we do have quite a bit in common; two nice Jewish boys in Chicago who love Hyde Park, who love to hack away at our word processors, who thoroughly enjoy an honest battle of ideas, and most important of all, we both love pastrami sandwiches!” I even sent him a “virtual gift” of kosher pastrami as a peace-offering.

But, the skinny,

In his final post where he announced the “break-up” and that he would not meet me in a debate, the nicest thing he had to say was that I was a “sexist” actively engaged in enslaving and oppressing women on every continent.

Wow! The Reb has that kind of pull? Here we figured he was lucky to just keep some Jewish families faithful – the rabbi’s perennial quest. Anyway, Rev Averick finishes with

Frankly, it is clear that Dr. Coyne was relieved that he found a good excuse not to discuss or debate the issue of Origin of Life with me in an open forum. Origin of Life is the soft, defenseless underbelly of the façade of “scientific” support for an atheistic worldview.

Well, we wish Moshe Averick a tougher opponent.

By the way, James Shapiro, currently sparring with the ID theorists, admits that origin of life is still on the fringe of science. It’s hardly a new or unreasonable idea.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Your question is misleading. The Bible claims divine inspiration. I believe that God does exist, and while I must answer for my own problems, you also will be held to account for misquoting and misusing scripture to bolster your claims that God doesn't exist. Good luck with that. I don't have blind allegiance, champignon, and this is why your arguments repeatedly fail. I came to the conclusion that the Bible is divinely inspired after years of reading and study. It's also not silly. I notice that you categorically ignore the post I made regarding the books of Ruth and Esther, both of which describe strong women. Please explain why you ignore these books and are so hung up on Deuteronomy, which does not apply to Christians today? Please explain to me why you don't get it. Why obfuscate? The fact that you repeatedly ignore the context of the scriptures you misquote tells me a lot about your intelligence and reading comprehension levels. It also tells me that you are, at least, intellectually dishonest. I pity you.Barb_{January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Barb, kuartus, Scott, You are accusing God of writing the Bible. Think about what a serious accusation that is. What if God actually exists, and you have to answer for your accusation some day? For example, you are claiming that God actually commanded this:
11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV
If God asks you, "This is really what you thought of me?", what will you say? How will you justify your blind allegiance to that silly book?champignon_{January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

I asked Barb:
Does that strike you as a good thing? If your daughter were raped, would you force her to marry her rapist and spend the rest of her life under his control, as the Bible demands?
Unbelievably, Barb says yes:
Given that marriage and children were of paramount importance in Israelite daily life, I would say so.
Wow.
Look at it from the perspective of the man: he is now forced to get gainful employment and care for this woman (whom he treated so callously) and any possible children.
As I remarked to kuartus, why not force the rapist to support her without forcing her to marry him? Instead you would force her to live with, honor and obey him, her rapist, for the rest of her life? That's horrendous. Shame on you. I asked:
If I go out, find an orphan girl, force her to marry me and to have sex with me, will you defend me in court, saying that I am conforming to the highest moral standard, the Holy Bible?
Barb responded:
Hold up a second with your hyperbole. The law required marriage IF RAPE HAD OCCURRED. In your scenario, marriage comes first and then forcible sex. That’s backwards.
I quoted more than one verse, Barb:
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. Deuteronomy 21:10-14, KJV
Nothing voluntary there. Forced marriage, forced sex. Do you condone it?champignon_{January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

Also, if my daughter were raped, I would not require her to marry her rapist. Why not? We're Christians. We're not under the Mosaic Law, as champignon seems to think. This is made abundantly clear by Paul's arguments in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament.Barb_{January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

“Does that strike you as a good thing? If your daughter were raped, would you force her to marry her rapist and spend the rest of her life under his control, as the Bible demands? Please answer the question.” Given that marriage and children were of paramount importance in Israelite daily life, I would say so. Look at it from the perspective of the man: he is now forced to get gainful employment and care for this woman (whom he treated so callously) and any possible children. “The rest of your comment seems to be an argument that forcible sex isn’t rape if you force the woman to marry you first.” The rest of my argument was based on scripture, which mandates that if rape has occurred, then marriage would follow as per the Law. “If I go out, find an orphan girl, force her to marry me and to have sex with me, will you defend me in court, saying that I am conforming to the highest moral standard, the Holy Bible?” Hold up a second with your hyperbole. The law required marriage IF RAPE HAD OCCURRED. In your scenario, marriage comes first and then forcible sex. That’s backwards. Ergo, no I would not defend you in court because what you are doing (a) is completely idiotic and (b) is unscriptural. The Bible’s moral standards are clearly higher than your own, as your example proves.Barb_{January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

It's important to note that these were laws, not moral principles. They may have provided a better outcome at the time, but that is no indication that they are unconditional moral absolutes or that the scriptures prescribe or condone them for non-Israelites living after and outside of that law. A simple evidence of this is that God permitted polygamy but only for a time. His purpose was that marriage would be the union of two people. But there was a time when, due to imperfect circumstances that God had neither willed nor created, allowing it may have been more beneficial than preventing it. For anyone to benefit from these laws required that all involved adhered especially to the most important ones, such as love for God and for each other. The nations Israel fought against were quite degraded. That same woman might have grown up to be a temple prostitute and may have been required to sacrifice her own offspring to idols. Being brought into the Israelite nation, even under such unusual conditions, may have been beneficial in the long term. Note that she was given time to mourn. But if her husband did not show the love required by that same law, she might not fare as well. There was no benefit from keeping some laws and ignoring the greater ones. That's the difference between the mosaic law and modern law. It was a way of life, not a bunch of legalities. That doesn't always sit well today. The idea of "rescuing" someone from one culture to live in a supposedly better one is offensive, and rightly so. Here are a few things, then, to take away from it: - The law provided specific instructions relevant to those people at that time. Not every law constituted an indefinitely lasting principle. - What seems quite undesirable to us may have been beneficial under those specific circumstances. - If we make absolute statements regarding what would or would not have been beneficial or moral under those circumstances, then we define our own limited understanding as the standard against which all else must be measured. We may feel that we have the wisdom to determine what may or may not have been the better answer, but to what extent can we predict the eventual outcome? And by what standards do we evaluate that outcome? Again, our own? We often don't realize that when we make seemingly small statements that seem "obviously" right, we make sweeping assumptions about our own wisdom and our ability to determine the best possible future for someone else. That's usually a mistake. When the people in question lived thousands of years ago in cultures we don't fully understand (not just Israel, which is better documented, but the other nations which are now long gone) it's almost impossible to shoot from the hip and decide that we know what would have made their lives better.ScottAndrews2_{January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Champ, I thought I made it clear to you that it was understood the law was a case law. It was never applied indiscriminately. Thats not something they needed to spell out. Sorry but they didnt have us in mind at the time. They werent thinking about making it clear to us. And you just completely ignored what I said. Marrige wasnt about love. The woman would not have had a problem with marrying the guy. She probably would have wanted to, and if she didnt she wouldnt have been forced to, though likely she would have thought it in her best interest to do so. AGAIN, it was a case law which only laid out general ground rules. Marrying the rapist was an option and if she opted for that, guess what, the guy COULD NOT refuse! Thats the whole point. To protect the victim. If she didnt, the guy still had to pay the entire bride price which was quite a lot of money. All in all, I dont think many guys would have thought it worthwile to go out and rape someone. Also you seem to think God should have issued even more commandments! As if that would have helped. The ancient israelites rarely ever kept the mosaic law which is why God was always mad at them. God could have commanded them to be nicer, and in many respects he did, but its doubtful it would have been heeded anyway.kuartus_{January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

kuartus,
In the context of ancient middle eastern culture and customs, the marrige would most probably be something the rape victim would actually want. Why? Because in those days a woman who was not a virgin would not be seen as a potential bride for anyone.
Then why not give her the choice of whether she wants to marry her rapist? Why force her to? And why doesn't God say "Thou shalt not reject a potential wife simply because she has been raped. It was not her fault."? God makes plenty of demands elsewhere that were uncomfortable for his people to obey. Why not do that in this case?
In the case of the rape, the rapist would have robbed the woman of her future prospects the security that would have come from someone providing for her needs and giving her offspring she could live off of ehen she was old.
Easy solution: force the rapist to support his victim, but don't force her to marry him, unless she chooses to. Surely God is smart enough to think of that, no?
Marriage under the law had to be consensual, with both parties and their families coming under a contract as it seems.
What about when the bride's family was dead, having been slaughtered at God's command?
Much was left to the courts to decide and issue in individual cases.
Please show me the verses where God says, "These are my commandments. It's up to you whether you obey them in any particular instance. Use your best judgment."champignon_{January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

I will answer your question champ. In the context of ancient middle eastern culture and customs, the marrige would most probably be something the rape victim would actually want. Why? Because in those days a woman who was not a virgin would not be seen as a potential bride for anyone. She would not be accepted. Thats just how things were back then. It was a different time. In the case of the rape, the rapist would have robbed the woman of her future prospects the security that would have come from someone providing for her needs and giving her offspring she could live off of ehen she was old. By leaving the rapist no choice but to marry her and paying her father a brides gift, the victim would be getting a chance at security and provision. Marrige back in those days wasnt really about love and romance but about securing ones future and lineage. In fact we see this scenario in 2 samuel. A woman is raped and afterwards wishes to marry her attacker. A couple more points. Marriage under the law had to be consensual, with both parties and their families coming under a contract as it seems. In fact the original text suggests the father arranging the marriage would consult with the daughter. And finally, the mosaic law was a case laethat was not to be applied blindly in all cases. Much was left to the courts to decide and issue in individual cases. The mosaic law served as a general guide and judges had considerable leeway in how they interpreted the law on a case to case basis depending on the circumstances. The same was true of other ancient middle eastern code laws.kuartus_{January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

Barb, Despite quoting my question at the beginning of your comment, you didn't answer it. Let me ask again. You wrote:
If a man raped a virgin, he was required under the Mosaic Law to marry her.
I asked:
Does that strike you as a good thing? If your daughter were raped, would you force her to marry her rapist and spend the rest of her life under his control, as the Bible demands?
Please answer the question. The rest of your comment seems to be an argument that forcible sex isn't rape if you force the woman to marry you first. If I go out, find an orphan girl, force her to marry me and to have sex with me, will you defend me in court, saying that I am conforming to the highest moral standard, the Holy Bible?champignon_{January 30, 2012
January
01
Jan
30
30
2012
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

Very well articulated Barb! I enjoyed reading your response very much!bornagain77_{January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Champignon: “Does that strike you as a good thing? If your daughter were raped, would you force her to marry her rapist and spend the rest of her life under his control, as the Bible demands?” The Bible demands that men treat women with honor and respect. That can be seen by reading Ephesians chapter 5. Under the Mosaic Law, a man who raped a woman was to die “just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him.” (Deuteronomy 22:25, 26) While we are no longer under that Law, it gives us insight into how God feels about rape—a horrible wrong. Under the Law, if an engaged girl committed fornication with another man, both she and the man were to be put to death. But if the girl screamed for help, this was taken as proof of her innocence. The man was put to death for his sin in which he forced her, and the girl was exonerated.—De 22:23-27. Here we go with the cherry-picking and quote mining: “11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 2 Samuel 12:11, KJV” Reading the Bible is one thing, Champignon, but understanding it is another. Let’s examine the context of this scripture. This particular chapter deals with the House of King David and some of the treachery that occurred during his reign. Occupying Jerusalem and the palace, Absalom accepted Hushai’s apparent defection to his side after first making a sarcastic reference to Hushai’s being the faithful “companion” of David. Then, acting on Ahithophel’s counsel, Absalom publicly had relations with his father’s concubines as proof of the complete break between himself and David and of his unrelenting determination to maintain control of the throne. (2Sa 16:15-23) In this way the latter part of Nathan’s inspired prophecy saw fulfillment.—2Sa 12:11. The scripture does not condone rape at all. You are clearly misquoting it. “10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. Deuteronomy 21:10-14, KJV” Again, let’s examine the context of what you’re quoting. The camp of God’s theocratic nation, therefore, differed from that of the pagan armies. The pagans would take women along with them that the warriors might indulge themselves with them, or on capturing a place the soldiers were given free rein to seize the womenfolk and rape them. (Isa. 13:16; Lam. 5:11; Zech. 14:2) There exists something similar to this today, when we read or hear of prostitutes tagging along after the military camps and of military officers deliberately providing places of prostitution in the neighborhood for the sexual satisfaction of their soldiers. In the theocratic camp of Israel this was prohibited because the war on which they were set out was theocratic, therefore sacred, and called for sanctification by the fighters. Therefore sexual contact with women, even their own wives and concubines, was prohibited to them and they voluntarily abstained from it. This was why Uriah, a Hittite of good will, when called in from the field by King David, did not go at night to his home in Jerusalem to be with his wife. When King David, ignoring the sacred requirements of the military campaign, asked Uriah why he had not gone home that night, that loyal soldier theocratically replied: “The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field; shall I then go into my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.” (2 Sam. 11:6-11, AS) If the Israelites were commanded to capture a place and kill off the men and the women that were not virgin, they were not free to rape the girls who were preserved alive. That would have been defiling the army, for it would have been committing fornication, immorality. If any Israelite wanted any captive maid he could not have relations with her immediately on capturing her. No, but he must keep himself sanctified for theocratic warfare by following the law that said: “In case you should go out to the battle against your enemies and Jehovah your God has given them into your hand and you have carried them away captive, and you have seen among the captives a woman beautiful in form and you have gotten attached to her and taken her for your wife, then you must bring her into the midst of your house. She must now shave her head and attend to her nails, and remove the garment of her captivity from off her and dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother a whole month, and after that you should have relations with her and you must take possession of her as your bride and she must become your wife.” (Deut. 21:10-13, NW) Until the military campaign was over and its sanctity had been maintained this sexual contact could not occur with divine approval. If a man called to the army was engaged to a girl, he was relieved of his army obligations for one year that he might go home and take his betrothed one in marriage and have a child by her that he might have an offspring and keep his name alive, that thus he might not be killed in battle childless.—Deut. 20:7; 24:5. Again for emphasis: the scripture you misquoted does not condone rape in any way, shape, or form. “17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18, KJV” The Hebrew verb cha•than?, meaning “form a marriage alliance,” is related to cho•then? (father-in-law), cha•than? (bridegroom; son-in-law), cho•the?neth (mother-in-law), and chathun•nah? (marriage).—1Sa 18:22; Ex 3:1; 4:25; Ge 19:14; De 27:23; Ca 3:11. In the battle with Midian, the Israelites preserved alive only virgins from among the women and girls. (Nu 31:3, 18, 35) The Law allowed for the taking of a wife from among such parentless female war captives. (De 21:10-14) Within the Promised Land itself God’s warning concerning marriage alliances with pagans was often ignored, with resulting problems and apostasy.—Jg 3:5, 6. Again, the scripture cited does not condone rape in any way, shape or form. “I have read the Bible, cover to cover, both as a Christian and as an atheist. The experience of reading the entire Bible, and not just the cherry-picked verses that everyone loves and cites, did more than anything else to convince me that the Bible is not the word of God.” It is plainly obvious that you have difficulty with reading comprehension. You repeatedly misquote scripture in an attempt to bolster your atheism and, unfortunately for you, it doesn’t work. Not when there are people who actually study the Bible and understand the context of what’s written. “I encourage Christians everywhere to read the entire Bible, think about what it is saying, and ask yourselves: “Is this the kind of book that a perfectly just, loving, omnisicient, omnipotent creator of the universe would write?” Yes, yes it is. For those who understand it and who are willing to put forth the effort to understand it, rather than simply doing a cursory reading and attempting to find anything that convinces them that their preconceived notions are correct. Clearly, you read it with a deeply closed mind.Barb_{January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Champ, I assure you your objections have been refuted. So instead of just trusting infidel websites like they are gospel, why dont you try for once to find out if your objections have already been answered. You are bringing nothing to the table that hasnt already been batted down a thousand times before. At least from what ive seen you write here at UD.kuartus_{January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Barb,
If a man raped a virgin, he was required under the Mosaic Law to marry her.
Does that strike you as a good thing? If your daughter were raped, would you force her to marry her rapist and spend the rest of her life under his control, as the Bible demands?
If you think the Bible describes rape in a favorable light, then I can only shake my head at your complete ignorance.
Really?
11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 2 Samuel 12:11, KJV

10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. Deuteronomy 21:10-14, KJV

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18, KJV
You exhort:
Try actually reading the Bible sometime.
I have read the Bible, cover to cover, both as a Christian and as an atheist. The experience of reading the entire Bible, and not just the cherry-picked verses that everyone loves and cites, did more than anything else to convince me that the Bible is not the word of God. I encourage Christians everywhere to read the entire Bible, think about what it is saying, and ask yourselves: "Is this the kind of book that a perfectly just, loving, omnisicient, omnipotent creator of the universe would write?"champignon_{January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Timbo, “Barb, I haven’t read Proverbs 31, but your description of it tells me how sexist it is. “The qualities of a capable wife”. You don’t find anything demeaning in that?” What is demeaning about being referred to as capable? Would you rather be referred to as incapable? Try reading the book you’re criticizing first. Your arguments will then actually hold some weight, rather than being simply baseless assumptions. “And I guess you’re looking past the parts of the bible about female virgins having to marry the first man that has sex with them, and men raping their female servants etc etc.” Rape is commented on in the Bible and never in a fashion which condones this violent act. If a man raped a virgin, he was required under the Mosaic Law to marry her. Women who were threatened with rape were required to scream and defend themselves. If you think the Bible describes rape in a favorable light, then I can only shake my head at your complete ignorance. “Barb, champignon writes, “The Old Testament is rife with sexism.” Actually, Bruce wrote that, not me.” My bad. “It’s true. Google ‘Bible sexism’ and you’ll see what we’re talking about.” Actually, I prefer to read and study the Bible itself rather than turn to the Internet—laced with misinformation as it is—to find the answers to my faith-related questions. Try actually reading the Bible sometime.Barb_{January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

moshe averick:
If you read the article with a little bit of care you will see that I never insinuated that Jerry Coyne asked Terri-Lynne McCormick or Faye Flame to argue on his behalf.
I see. So you merely said that Coyne 'prefers' to have women do his fighting for him, not that he actually asked them to do it, as if that makes a significant difference. Don't you see how loutish your statement is under either interpretation?
If I disagree with someone, I put forward my own arguments, I don’t hide behind what others write and then childishly taunt and point out to them that other people said nasty things.
That's an amusingly adolescent pissing-contest view of what debate is about. For you the objective is to defeat your opponent, and to do it in a "manly" way, without help from others -- as if citing someone else (especially a woman!) would mean that you were weak and that you were "hiding behind" what they wrote.
When I said that Jerry Coyne prefers to have women do his fighting for him, it was a reflection on the tactics of Jerry Coyne, not McCormick or Flam. If you perceive that I was insinuating that Coyne is a coward for using these types of tactics, then you are absolutely correct.
More macho posturing. In your world a man who cites women is a coward. A man who cites other men is better, but a self-reliant man who uses his "own" arguments -- as if he weren't the beneficiary of a long line of thinkers before him -- is the best.
I don’t use the word “sexist” in my vocabulary, so I really am not sure how people use that word and what exactly they mean.
In all your years of life you never felt enough curiosity or empathy to find out? That's especially pitiful given that you yourself are a member of a group that has suffered so much from oppression at the hands of others. So tell us -- why is it more cowardly for Coyne to cite a woman than a man? Are you really surprised that women find your statement to be offensive?champignon_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

Barb,
champignon writes, “The Old Testament is rife with sexism.”
Actually, Bruce wrote that, not me. It's true. Google 'Bible sexism' and you'll see what we're talking about.champignon_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

Rabbi Averick, First of all, thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to comment here. I understand what you are saying regarding your comment about Jerry Coyne letting women do his fighting for him being a condemnation of Coyne and not the women in question (or women in general). However, this is what strikes me about it: the fact that you used the term "women" rather than a gender neutral term, like "others" kind of brings me up a little short. If it had been an actual physical fight you had been referring to rather than an intellectual one, then the accusation would have been the more telling because most women are in fact physically smaller and weaker than most men, and that fact would have made his action even more cowardly. Thus, your comment has the appearance of containing an implicit assumption that women are somehow less capable than men in intellectual debate as well. I'm not accusing you of actually believe this; I am only pointing out my take on the reason your attack on Dr. Coyne raised some feminist hackles. That said, I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoy your sparring with him. I read a couple of your original articles and got quite a few chuckles out of them, and I added your book to my Amazon.com wish list.Bruce David_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Blue_Savannah
Bruce, my authority that God disproves of sexism is found in the Golden Rule.
How do you know that living by the Golden Rule is God's command? I presume because it is mentioned with approbation a couple of times in the Bible. Now you interpret the Golden Rule to imply that God disapproves of sexism (many Christians do not and historically have not, by the way). In that case, how do you reconcile that with the many instances of sexism that are also found in the Bible, such as in 1Timothy 2:11-15 where we are informed that women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men and that they are to remain silent, or in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, where it is stated that a girl who is found not to be a virgin upon being married shall be stoned to death? (There is no such imperative for males.) How do you decide which of the admonitions in the Bible are the word of God and which are not? I submit that it is you (and indeed everyone who regards the Bible as God's word) who both 1) interprets the moral injunctions contained therein and 2) decides which ones (as so interpreted) are relevant in today's world and which should be ignored. It isn't God who establishes your morality; it is you.
Only with GOD do we have morality.
This is simply false. My brother is kind, generous, compassionate, loving, possessing high integrity, and an outstanding father to his two grateful and also quite wonderful daughters. They are all three also atheists, materialists, and Darwinists. I am convinced that the twin notions of sin and morality are among the most pernicious ideas that bedevil humankind. The idea that we are justified in judging another (because God judges us) gives license for us to visit untold atrocities upon each other. Far better that we do as God actually does, and seek rather to heal with love than to condemn with judgment.Bruce David_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Rabbi M.Averick (cool name by the way! :) ) I appreciate your articles. Especially your research into what Origin of Life chemists themselves are saying. The quotes 'from the horses mouth' are truly gems. ,,, As well, if you are interested, I condensed your video a bit to focus more squarely on the quotes you cited, as well, I've added some more references, in the video description, that I've collected over the past few years. There may be a few gems, in the video description, that you may find useful in your writings, on top of the many gems you have already collected.
The Digital Code of DNA and the Unimagined Complexity of a 'Simple' Bacteria - Rabbi Moshe Averick - video (Notes in Description) http://vimeo.com/35730736
bornagain77_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Barb, I haven't read Proverbs 31, but your description of it tells me how sexist it is. "The qualities of a capable wife". You don't find anything demeaning in that? And I guess you're looking past the parts of the bible about female virgins having to marry the first man that has sex with them, and men raping their female servants etc etc.Timbo_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

champignon writes, "The Old Testament is rife with sexism." Ever read the 31st chapter of Proverbs, which discusses the qualities of a capable wife? What about the books of Ruth and Esther, both of which describe hard-working, intelligent, courageous women? Or how about divine law as expressed in the Bible that shows a high regard for women, which was in marked contrast with the attitudes of many ancient cultures? Note how God’s concern for the welfare of women is evident from the several instances in which he acted in behalf of his female worshippers. Twice he intervened to protect Abraham’s beautiful wife, Sarah, from being violated. (Genesis 12:14-20; 20:1-7) God showed favor to Jacob’s less-loved wife, Leah, by ‘opening her womb,’ so that she bore a son. (Genesis 29:31, 32) When two God-fearing Israelite midwives risked their lives to preserve Hebrew male children from infanticide in Egypt, God appreciatively “presented them with families.” (Exodus 1:17, 20, 21) He also answered Hannah’s fervent prayer. (1 Samuel 1:10, 20) And when the widow of a prophet faced a creditor who was about to take her children as slaves to pay off her debt, God did not leave her in the lurch. Lovingly, God enabled the prophet Elisha to multiply her supply of oil so that she could pay the debt and still have sufficient oil for her family. She thus preserved her family and her dignity.—Exodus 22:22, 23; 2 Kings 4:1-7. The prophets repeatedly condemned the exploitation of women or the use of violence against them. The prophet Jeremiah told the Israelites in God’s name: “Render justice and righteousness, and deliver the one that is being robbed out of the hand of the defrauder; and do not maltreat any alien resident, fatherless boy or widow. Do them no violence. And do not shed any innocent blood in this place.” (Jeremiah 22:2, 3) Later, the rich and powerful in Israel were condemned because they had evicted women from their homes and mistreated their children. (Micah 2:9) The God of justice sees and condemns as evil such suffering caused to women and their children. Have you ever actually read the Old Testament? Because I don't see sexism here.Barb_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

congratulations moshe, you just produced countless bits of information to defend yourself from a weasel accusation, and in doing so you have allowed Coyne derail the entire conversation about OOL. Stay on topic. Does a plausible pathway from inorganic chemicals to a single self-replicator exist? Coyne certainly understands that the saying, "having women fight for you," is a metaphor for "coward". And that the metaphor is grounded in the biological gender dichotomy, explained simply by our beloved evolutionary psychology: Gender-a is generally (gaussian) physically stronger than gender-b, so gender-a would typically engage in the physical activities, one of which being combat. None of this has anything to do with sexism. It's just biology. If one should like to test this: Next time secular.gender.A and secular.gender.B find themselves in bed together, and there is a loud noise heard downstairs, (maybe a window breaking), have secular.gender.A push secular.gender.B out of the bed, hand secular.gender.B the gun and tell (her) to go handle it. And then wait to see how long it takes secular.gender.B to find a jewish.gender.A to lay withjunkdnaforlife_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

One last thing. Wasn't it Darwin who claimed women were inferior and doomed to be that way, because they had smaller brains than men? Coyne needs to find a better excuse for not debating Rabbi Asherick...perhaps he could try the truth. He can't win against Asherick.Blue_Savannah_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Bruce, my authority that God disproves of sexism is found in the Golden Rule. Now, please tell me why the Golden Rule should apply in a world where 'survival of the fittest' is the only law of life? If you are not superior to maggots or bacteria, as atheist Ruse claims, why is it wrong to be sexist??? As John Lennox stated: Science can tell us if we put strychnine in our grandmother's tea it will kill her, but it cannot tell us WHY it is morally wrong to do so. So Bruce, if killing granny means my survival chances would be greatly increased, why is it morally wrong to kill her? Especially if she's just accidental chemicals. Only with GOD do we have morality.Blue_Savannah_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Champignon, Your first mistake is to take Coyne's adolescent rantings at face value. If you read my latest column at Algemeiner.com and follow the history of our little feud, you will see that the whole "sexism" thing was nothing more than an excuse to avoid a face to face debate. Much like Dawkins (a man who believes that good and evil are non-existent, and that we are not truly responsible for our actions) when he self-righteously refused to meet with W.L. Craig because of Craig's analysis of a war that took place 3,300 years ago.moshe averick_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

If you read the article with a little bit of care you will see that I never insinuated that Jerry Coyne asked Terri-Lynne McCormick or Faye Flame to argue on his behalf. That is ridiculous. When I mentioned their names I provided links to Coyne's blog Why Evolution is True where he cited their articles to attack me. It would be as if I cited an article by Denyse O'leary that attacked Coyne and added on my own "Ha-Ha, Denyse O'leary showed what a jerk you are (which she does, of course)" or I cited an article by David Klinghoffer about Coyne and said "Ha-Ha, Klinghoffer really shows what a jerk you are (which he probably would if he wrote about Coyne)" If I disagree with someone, I put forward my own arguments, I don't hide behind what others write and then childishly taunt and point out to them that other people said nasty things. My point was that Coyne, in his blowhard style, challenged me with big talk and then did everything possible to back away from any type of mature, adult discussion in an open forum. I live 20 minutes away from the University of Chicago and it would have been extraordinarily easy to arrange some type of meeting. I also made it very clear - if you read what I wrote - that I had no objections whatsoever to the fact that Terri-Lynne McCormick and Faye Flam wrote pieces disagreeing with me. I said explicitly that Ms. McCormick, although she was wrong in her accusation, felt she was standing up for her husband, which in my opinion is admirable. I also said explicitly that Faye Flam was gracious and civil in her disagreement, albeit her logic left much to be desired. When I said that Jerry Coyne prefers to have women do his fighting for him, it was a reflection on the tactics of Jerry Coyne, not McCormick or Flam. If you perceive that I was insinuating that Coyne is a coward for using these types of tactics, then you are absolutely correct. I don't use the word "sexist" in my vocabulary, so I really am not sure how people use that word and what exactly they mean. If by calling me a sexist, Coyne was saying that I denigrated women somehow, then that is obviously nonsense, I was denigrating him, not women.moshe averick_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Are you really that unthoughtful that you believe what you are saying here? You have obviously never known anyone who left a fundamentalist type of religious community.Timbo_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Yoo hoo!! Let Mrs. Averick speak for herself, if she wishes. Isn't that the point? Living in a culture largely shaped by Jews as well as Christians, she is entirely free to reject her religion or her ol' man if she doesn't agree with it/him. You think that a small achievement? Wow. Jerry Coyne should save his tears for women who live in cultures where they can't.News_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

News,
Some of us, when we think of oppression of women, think of, say, The Stoning of Soraya M, dowry burns, and legal wife-beating.
I'd say that screaming and spitting at an eight-year-old qualifies as oppression:
On Tuesday night, thousands of Israelis in the city of Beit Shemesh, just west of Jerusalem, gathered to protest the harassment of Naama Margolese, a cherub-faced second grader filmed weeping as she described walking to school while a few ultra-Orthodox Haredi Jewish men spat and screamed at her. The Haredi hecklers took issue with eight-year-old Naama’s exposed arms. More generally, they resented having to watch a procession of what they called “Nazis” and “whores” traipsing down their streets to get to a single-sex school nearby.
Anyway, Coyne is very clear about who he's criticizing:
Yes, we know that some Orthodox Jews pray every day, thanking G-d that they weren’t born a woman, and that Orthodox Jews make women second-class citizens, forcing them to become baby machines, to ritually purify themselves after menstruation, and to worship behind a screen at the back of the schul. I would hope that, although Averick is an Orthodox rabbi, he’d be a bit more enlightened than this. He clearly isn’t. If there’s a Mrs. Averick, I weep for her.
champignon_{January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply