Keith Devens .com

I always find it amusing when Doctors tell you how parts of the body and brain are "designed". Then in the next breath tell you that's how we evolved. Sorry doc....a design needs a designer. Period.

Both could be true at the same time, if the designer's tool is evolution.

One is considered intolerant, or worse, a bigot, if he dares to hold the view that abortion is wrong, homesexuality is a sin, and so on.

The problem isn't that people have or voice certain (faith-based) views, it's forming policy/legislation those enacts these views as the law of the land.

And people look at you like a flat-earther if you're crazy enough to not believe that man evolved from "ape-like creatures".

I haven't seen many folks have a problem with those who don't believe in evolution, especially if they can posit a different scientific theory. All too often, creationists play the "God" card when an agnostic position on evolution would be more appropriate.

It's often a waste of time to try and scientifically debate matters of faith.

... and people who hold to religious views most persecuted.

I'm sure if you ask the godless intellectuals, they'll also claim to be among the most persecuted. As a member of a certain faith or special interest community, it's almost part of the program to feel under threat/pressure on some level by those outside the circle.

I haven't seen many folks have a problem with those who don't believe in evolution, especially if they can posit a different scientific theory... It's often a waste of time to try and scientifically debate matters of faith.

The problem is that proponents of evolution consider their view to be scientific when it's not. People have to realize that the theory of evolution is a faith committment to an anti-supernaturalist theory of origins.

The problem isn't that people have or voice certain (faith-based) views, it's forming policy/legislation those enacts these views as the law of the land.

If you recognized that evolution is itself a faith-based view I'd probably agree with you, but implicit in your statement seems to be that it's just fine if the state requires schools to teach evolution as dogma, but not creation. Though, my point above is that it's not legislation that's the problem or that puts a damper on scientific objectivity, but that the scientific community itself has an anti-Christian, pro-atheist bias that leads to only one version of events to be told, notably without frank discussion of the problems in that view or of any alternatives proposed.

All too often, creationists play the "God" card when an agnostic position on evolution would be more appropriate.

Could you please elaborate?

I'm sure if you ask the godless intellectuals, they'll also claim to be among the most persecuted.

Yeah, but do they have a book about their persecution?

Seriously though, I think you're right in a way. Though I don't think that they consider themselves persecuted... I find it hard to believe that a liberal or atheistic professor would tend to feel persecuted in modern academia.

The way I think you're right is the following. I get the Skeptic's society's e-mail newsletter. What I find strange is that they often point to statistics that say things like 90% (or whatever) of Americans believe in "a god", and they seem to want to view themselves as a minority. They seem to purposefully ignore other statistics that would make such a claim implausible, like that 30% (or whatever) -- and declining -- of Americans attend church on a regular basis. Or that most, even many Christians, agree with them on their fundamental presuppositions and often believe in evolution themselves.

As a Christian I look at the culture-at-large, or especially the way people generally think (most people seem to be cultural relativists, believe in evolution, etc.), and I certainly don't feel like I'm in the majority.

People have to realize that the theory of evolution is a faith committment to an anti-supernaturalist theory of origins.

No... it's nowhere near the same kind of faith committment as someone who defers matters of science to the Bible. The scientific approach, while prone to the same excesses and poor reasoning (we're all human, after all), generally has a better record than faith-based thinking. Many supernaturalist theories are pretty outlandish-- not subject to structured debate, peer review, etc.

If you recognized that evolution is itself a faith-based view

Here's an awkward attempt: I recognize that evolution is a scientific-based view with an imperfect body of evidence and a large dose of "we must at all costs reject any alternative unscientific (creationist) theory."

To the extent that hard evidence for evolution may be thin or refutable, I'd consider that weakness in the theory. Lots of theories and principles lack solid evidentiary underpinnings and yet hey are reason-able ideas and not faith-based.

your statement seems to be that it's just fine if the state requires schools to teach evolution as dogma, but not creation.

I'm fine with most schools teaching evolutionary theory, just as is done with many scientific theories. Schools should teach children to think critically-- and for themselves. Many faith-based schools do just the opposite. Been that way for millenia.

the scientific community itself has an anti-Christian, pro-atheist bias

Yeah, they tend to see faith as antithetical to reason-- and y'know, sometimes it is. ;^) Scientists reject ideas that are not reason-able (including many faith-based ideas) even while some of their "scientific" ideas lack evidence and rigor.

Could you please elaborate?

The two groups have default values. For proponents of evolution, that value is: "Evolution is the prevailing theory until it is supplanted by a more accurate or correct theory." For creationists, the default value is often: "God (or divine intervention) is the truth irrespective of other theories."

Yeah, but do they have a book about their persecution?

Please! Just do a search on anti-intellectualism on Amazon. You know intellectuals can't resist an opportunity to write a book.

they seem to want to view themselves as a minority

Every group identifies itself as a minority (or at least under threat), it promotes solidarity in the group. This is pure human nature (probably an evolved behavior! :^), and it's especially visible in technology circles as you well know. Clay Shirky did a nice job describing this in A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy.

if you're crazy enough to not believe that man evolved from "ape-like creatures".

Hmmm... let's leave the hot-button topic of man's evolution out of this for a moment. Many of my religious friends (I'm agnostic) dispute evolution because it implies that man emerged from other creatures rather than the divine hand of God.

Is it more reasonable to believe that birds have taken flight in the skies since they first appeared on the earth (as God's creation), or is it more reasonable to believe that they developed from other flightless animals?

I struggle with the concept of the universe/world having no designer, but at the same time, I think evolution addresses the diversity & behavior of life better than any other view.

I certainly don't feel like I'm in the majority

Well, you're a christian creationist among the technical digiterati, that must be somewhat alienating. Much of the Internet crowd must be sympathetic to evolution, right; what else would explain these clearly vestigeal forehead wrinkles? :^)

I think your quick jab at scientists in the first paragraph is not entirely fair. In science there are rules (laws of science), and there are rules about rules (unofficial rules that govern how the laws of science are formed; for example, today the scientific method is the prevailing set of rules about rules). In general, scientists are pretty good about challenging/questioning rules. What they don't appreciate is scientists who subvert the "rules about rules", breaking the process by which we "make" science. So when you say that scientists are bad about challenging orthodoxy, I would agree that scientists rarely question the scientific method; but although the scientific method and our conception of knowledge should be questioned, they also serve as stabilizers in the advancement of scienctific knowledge.

People have to realize that the theory of evolution is a faith committment to an anti-supernaturalist theory of origins.

Not at all. Evolution looks at what is there. Evidence in form of fossils and genes, and draws its conclusions. The problem with supernaturalist "theories" is that they aren't approachable by the scientific method. So how should one rule out one supernaturalist theory against the other? Wouldn't it be more "fair" and "unbiased" to accept any supernaturalist theory? And if you say no, on what methodological basis did you make this decision?

Though, my point above is that it's not legislation that's the problem or that puts a damper on scientific objectivity, but that the scientific community itself has an anti-Christian, pro-atheist bias that leads to only one version of events to be told, notably without frank discussion of the problems in that view or of any alternatives proposed.

Quite a broad claim. Do you have any statistics to back up this statement that the scientific community is anti-Christian? What about those scientists who say they are Christians? All liars or hypocrites?

argh, this form submits to fast for me, the comment above is also from me...