October 12, 2010
Surprising Altruism: Human Love Defies Darwinian Explanation
By Chuck Colson
This past weekend, practically every TV was tuned to the same event and the same place. No, it wasn’t an NFL football game. Americans were gripped this past weekend with the high drama of watching men drilling a hole in the ground: a hole that represented the difference between life and death and a hole that illustrates why, contrary to what we have been told, we are not just another ape.
On August 5th, a copper and gold mine in Chile caved in. The tragedy turned into a national crusade when, seventeen days later, it was confirmed that thirty-three miners had miraculously survived the cave-in. They were trapped in a rescue chamber 2,300 feet beneath the surface. President Sebastian Pinera and his government made the miners’ rescue their top priority. Work began immediately on drilling a 28-inch hole down to the rescue chamber to extract the survivors. No expense or effort was spared, and technical help came in from all around the world. And while families maintained a silent but painful vigil, food, water and other supplies were lowered down to the survivors through a smaller hole.
This past weekend, the rescue shaft was completed. Given its width, the miners will have to be removed one at a time. Since each trip will take approximately an hour, it will take the better part of two days to remove all the miners. Who should go first? The weakest? Well, there was still one more twist in store for Chile and the world. A surprised Health Minister Jaime Manalich told AP that the miners “were fighting with [authorities] yesterday because everyone wanted to be at the end of the line, not the beginning.”
A news man from the scene choked up while reporting it. You know who else should be surprised: Darwinians. They believe the race has evolved through survival of the fittest. Neo-Darwinism cannot explain altruism like that displayed by the miners. At best, it can offer a superficially-plausible explanation for what they call “cooperation.”
But caring about someone outside your immediate kinship group, much less being willing to sacrifice your well-being for theirs? Never. Richard Dawkins’ “selfish gene” would demand to be the first person out of that mine. The “selfish gene” would not have even made the miners’ rescue a national priority. It would have settled for superficially-plausible mourning.
A far more plausible explanation is suggested by the items that the miners asked be sent down to them while they waited for rescue: a crucifix and other items associated with their Catholic faith. They told officials that they wanted to set up a shrine in the rescue chamber. They signed two flags for Pope Benedict and, to make sure he got at least one, gave them to different officials.
Now ask yourself, which is a better explanation for their altruism: a “selfish gene” or belief in a Good Shepherd that gives his life for the sheep?
Even without an explicit faith connection, we know that this kind of altruism is uniquely human. Females of other species will fight to the death to defend their young, but another female’s young? Never. This is so obvious that the insistence that man is just another ape is nothing but a worldview – a humanist philosophy which is palpably false. It’s a worldview that can never account for what just happened in Chile, and makes the continued adherence to the Darwinian worldview the biggest surprise of all.
Loading ...
Love the title. It really does a good job highlighting the complete lack of understanding illustrated in the article.
The author seems especially caught up in the idea of the ‘Selfish Gene’, but clearly fails to understand what Richard Dawkins meant by it. Let me clarify — the idea is not that we have a gene that makes us selfish, it’s that genes are the driving force of evolution and that we have an imperative to preserve our genetic bits and pieces. It well supports the idea that we would want to help keep other people alive, because they share more genes with us than anything else could.
It’s really unfortunate that so many people scream and yell about evolution without actually bothering to take the afternoon it would take to sit down and understand the basic principles. Survival of the Fittest is not about athleticism, the Selfish Gene isn’t about being a jerk. Evolution doesn’t demand that your recent ancestors have been monkeys, nor does it suggest anything about the origin of simple life — just that simple life can become more complex over enormous amounts of time through a predictable, natural process.
This article is a hollow ‘I told you so’ moment, where creationists feel they’ve scored a cheap point, but really have just shown that they still don’t understand what it is they reject with such venom.
Etch, your own “venom” has caused you to miss the entire story here. So, what if Colson did misunderstand the “selfish Gene” thing? Again so what! The story about these miners is amazing in that they are not all clamoring to be “me first.” I could not imagine the anticipation of their finally being free yet they push to send others first. I am sure they are all well aware there could be a break down and only some could be rescued and the rest, well, who knows?
“This article is a hollow ‘I told you so’ moment, where creationists feel they’ve scored a cheap point, but really have just shown that they still don’t understand what it is they reject with such venom.” There is no “cheap point” here. These men’s faith is not cheap and it has served them well and proud. Just saying we don’t understand and not offering opposing arguments makes you look like the ignoramus whose own venom has polluted rational thought.
Wow, I didn’t think anyone actually held to “survival of the Fittest ” any more. Maybe you could use that understanding to explain why there are so many homosexuals. So how do their genes continue to get reproduced when they obviously can’t procreate?
Etch, “Evolution doesn’t demand that your recent ancestors have been monkeys, nor does it suggest anything about the origin of simple life — just that simple life can become more complex over enormous amounts of time through a predictable, natural process.”
That’s exactly what we understand – so not sure why you presume to tell us we don’t understand evolution – and that’s exactly the philosophical, non-scientific nonsense we refute with the scientific evidence that we keep losing genetic information, not gaining it, over the generations, etc., etc., etc. What you say here is evolution is far more easy to refute than what you want to think we understand evolution to be – not that it’s difficult to refute any of it.
@SiteEditor: If evolution is “far more easy to refute…” then why hasn’t it been done yet?
The answer, of course, is that nobody has been able to refute this solid theory. Biological evolution has more supporting evidence than ‘germ theory’ and ‘gravitational theory’ combined.
Do you want to try to falsify the theory of gravity too??
Over 150 years of experimentation and investigation – and the theory of evolution stands as the strongest scientific theory to date. Not one person/experiment has managed to falsify it (though many have tried)… that should say something to you.
Hey Joe, according to your theory it took millions of years for the smallest mutations to appear to produce the trajectory from goo to you by way of the zoo, so it’s rather interesting to hear you say that observable, repeatable scientific experiments over the course of only 150 years are sufficient to prove evolution. Actually, I think every responsible scientist acknowledges that they have never seen evolution in action. It’s all theory and philosophy. It has nothing to do with biology or geology or genetics at all. Your blind faith is very revealing…
SiteEditor wrote: “according to your theory it took millions of years for…”
I know that numbers and science isn’t your strong suit… but the “m” should be a “b”. We’re talking about ~billions~ of years.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) has been shown in the lab many times… fruit flies is the most famous case.
SiteEditor cont’d: “…you say that observable, repeatable scientific experiments over the course of only 150 years are sufficient to prove evolution.”
I do? I’ll add reading to the list of things you don’t do well.
Scientific theories are never “proven”. Proofs are left to the maths. The theory of gravity is just a theory too btw.
SiteEditor cont’d: “I think every responsible scientist acknowledges that they have never seen evolution in action.”
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this claim – given your backround. This isn’t even close. No “responsible scientist” denies the validity of the ToE – none.
It’s not some crazy new scientific theory (the ToE) – it’s lasted for over 150 years because it is right. Every new discovery supports the theory – it has more supporting evidence (notice it isn’t “proof”) than any other scientific theory including gravity.
SiteEditor finishes with: “It has nothing to do with biology or geology or genetics at all.”
Major FAIL… but anything less from a 6-day creationist would be a shock!
Mr. Tuck, do you have a point to make? I read the article, and it wasn’t all about the bravery and strength of the miners, it electing to use their misfortune as a basis to try to stick one to science — poorly. The article claims that evolution can’t explain the behavior, but that’s simply false.
As for your comment regarding the ‘Survival of the Fittest’; I’m aware that it’s not ideal science, but it is a good place to start understanding the modern theory. It’s relevant here, since it seems like those who oppose evolution are only interested/capable of attacking it from the most trivial perspective possible, and that includes attacking a hundred year old misconceptions.
Site Editor: “so not sure why you presume to tell us we don’t understand evolution”… Easy; because it’s clear, since you posted this ridiculous article, that you don’t understand evolution, or that you are being willfully ignorant of it.
As for the ‘Losing Genetic Information’ bit which you gloss over at high speed — I can’t seem to find any journals talking about it. Or anyone talking about it, actually, except for Answers in Genesis and people quoting Answers in Genesis; not exactly a reputable source for science information, what with the whole conflict of interest thing. However if you have something peer reviewed on the topic, or any anti evolution discussion, I’d love to read them.
I’m pretty confident that if evolution were easy to refute, Biologists would be the first to know, and yet they all seem pretty set in their ways. The must just be stubborn.
Etch”… what with the whole conflict of interest thing…” We all have a conflict of interest in this evolution discussion, and that includes you. You see that is where you show your dishonesty at honest debate. You make accusations, which you and those like you are every bit, if not more, guilty of than the ones you accuse. You want evolution to be true so you put your faith in theory as though it were fact all the while saying we do the same thing. The only real difference is the starting point and the perspective that starting point affords you or me.
I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t attempt to answer how genes get reproduced in those who can’t procreate.
“The article claims that evolution can’t explain the behavior, but that’s simply false.” So does just saying it is so, make it so, to you, Etch? Don’t be so silly, if it is false then share with us how it is false, don’t just blather on with totally unsupportable claims.
No way, joe, that’s too funny for words… You actually believe that micro evolution within a species is the same process as you guys claim to exist between species – macro–evolution. You’ve got to be kidding. You should donate yourself to a museum – or to a lab as a specimen… an adult who believes mcicro- and macro-evolution are the same and that the former proves the latter??? Ha, ha, ha. That’s hillarious.
The inventor of the MRI technology was a 6-day creationist. But since 6-day creationists are morons, you can’t trust that technology, so you’d better never use it. Hey gumby. I know you have your blind faith, so I guess you don’t want to be confused with the facts.
And evolution has lasted 150 years because of a fascistic, censorship-minded professoriat and the dominance over that period of time of liberal/jhumanist worldview which has to protect evolutionary theory as the necessary ideological foundation for their worldview. Kind of like the way the Psycho Association changed its position on homosexuality, not because of science, but because activists got up in their meetings and harangued and harassed them. But you wouldn’t believe historical facts because you’re a faith-based evolutionist.
You can find liberty through faith in Christ or you can continue to wallow in the foolishness of atheistic ignorance. This is getting too funny for words – if it wasn’t so sad.
Ian wrote: “You want evolution to be true so you put your faith in theory as though it were fact…”
What would we gain from this exactly? Why would I, a computer programmer – not a biologist, want to support a lie? How do I gain in this scerario you imagine?
What could I possible gain by keeping faulty science around?
Ian cont’d: “all the while saying we do the same thing.”
The reason the creationist/ID movement exists is religion. They desperately want ~their~ version of religion to be right and aren’t above ignoring real science to make it appear that way. Their whole existence revolves around religion – without it they’d be nothing. That is a pretty good incentive to lie and cheat to keep creationism/ID going no?
Ian cont’d: “I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t attempt to answer how genes get reproduced in those who can’t procreate.” (as if gays can’t procreate!)
I can’t believe you’d bring this up again – I hoped you were joking when you wrote: “…explain why there are so many homosexuals. So how do their genes continue to get reproduced when they obviously can’t procreate?”
It doesn’t get much dumber than that I’m afraid… that’s weapon grade stupidity right there!
Have you heard of “IVF” – the guy who pioneered this medical procedure just got the Nobel Prize for medicine for it. It allows all sorts of ‘unfit’ genes to get passed on.
And of course you probably don’t realize that many many homosexuals are living life in the closet – having families like the rest of us for fear of coming “out”.
And then there’s the whole question about whether being gay is genetic or not.
It’s such a monumentally stupid question… you seem like the typical creationist, so certain the ToE is wrong despite the fact you clearly don’t even know the basics of the theory to begin with. If you truly want to attack the ToE you should really brush up on it first…
SiteEditor wrote: “You actually believe that micro evolution within a species is the same process as you guys claim to exist between species – macro–evolution.”
No. I don’t “believe” it… I ~know~ it.
What you’re claiming is, in essence, the same as saying that walking around a city is not the same thing as walking around a country. You can walk across the street. You can walk downtown – but you can’t under any circumstances walk across the country!!
It’s the same ~walking~ – just different degrees. If you can walk across the street then you can, eventually, walk across the country.
SiteEditor cont’d: “evolution has lasted 150 years because of a fascistic, censorship-minded professoriat and the dominance over that period of time of liberal/jhumanist worldview which has to protect evolutionary theory as the necessary ideological foundation for their worldview.”
Oh… My… Dog! That’s LOL conspiracy theory!
In your mind EVERY school, EVERY scientist (excluding the handful of creationists), every country, every gov’t… basically EVERYONE has conspired to make the ToE appear to be as rock solid as it does.
Seriously? You honestly believe that this sized conspiracy could exist? It’s ludicrous…
SiteEditor finished with: “This is getting too funny for words”
I agree with you here… but I don’t think you’re in on the joke.
Sorry Etch I forgot to answer your query, “Mr. Tuck, do you have a point to make?” Yes I do: You quivel over semantics, when the crux of the story is the miners rescue and how their faith is a very strong part of how they lived the past couple of months as well as their altruistic actions. You totally ignored the biggest part of the story, which is the faith of the trapped miners and fixated upon the part you thought you could pick holes in. And you ask me if I have a point to make! You funny, Etch!
Joe agnose, “And then there’s the whole question about whether being gay is genetic or not.” It isn’t genetic, that is my point. It is a choice and as such people should be free to disagree with it without all the abuse. And are you seriously suggesting that IVF is the reason there are so many gays? Check your brain Joe it isn’t working properly.
Ian wrote: “It isn’t genetic, that is my point. It is a choice…”
False dichotomy Ian… It’s not “genetic – or choice”.
I hate celery. I doubt very much that this is genetic. I also know that I can’t just ~decide~ to like celery.
Let me ask you this Ian – could ~you~ change if you wanted to? If JC himself told you that gay was the new path to salvation could you just ~choose~ to be gay?
If the answer is ‘no’ then why do you think gay people can just ~choose~ to be straight?
Ian finished with: “are you seriously suggesting that IVF is the reason there are so many gays?”
Why can’t you just read the words and NOT add arms and legs to them. No – I am not suggesting that (can you show me where I did?). I am showing you a mechanism that propogates unfit genes.
Ian:
In foremost, *I* do not claim to be a scientifically authoritative source. Answers in Genesis DOES make that claim, despite THEIR conflict of interest. Ergo, since the only source I can find for the lost-genetic-material-”debate” is not only singular but biased, I asked for additional sources. Magically, this is how science works. Lots of DIFFERENT people study the same thing, then check each other’s work for inconsistencies, repeatability or possible logical faults and then we come to a conclusion.
I know it’s slow, and inconvenient, as it generally doesn’t verify the answers that religions came to a few millenia ago, but unlike those answers, it actually has applications in our day to day lives. Simply saying that people ‘have faith’ in evolution doesn’t actual disprove it.
I can help you understand how evolution supports the existence of homosexuality. We don’t understand it explicitly, but there are some good theories. In foremost, it could be a recessive trait, that can be carried by ‘non-gays’ but appear dominantly in their children; that’s why you can have children with unexpected hair or eye color. Additionally, we don’t even know if being gay is specifically a genetic trait. There is some evidence that the more brothers a boy has, the more likely they are to be gay — something that has to do with the mother being increasingly sensitive to the presence of a male fetus. This could imply that people are made gay in the womb during formation (via hormones and what not), rather than having a specific gene that produces the end result. As such, the mother would be the carrier of the ‘gay gene’.
There’s more theories as well that suggest that homosexuals may play a unique social role in between the sexual division of labor. There are some considerations that perhaps the suspected-correlation between males borne and homosexuality is to reduce sexual competition amongst males. I can dig up links to article, if you’ll actually read them; or you can google them yourself. Whatever.
“So does just saying it is so, make it so, to you, Etch?” No; that logic is purely biblical. However, I haven’t studied evolutionary sociology or anything so I can’t be taken as a particularly expert witness on this topic. However, I have read a large number of papers and articles regarding the nature of cooperative and altruistic behavior as it relates to evolution. The simple answer is, we cooperate because it allows us to specialize (creating a greater-than-the-sum-of-it’s-parts society), and we’re altruistic because it’s seen as a selectable trait encouraging cooperation, thus reinforcing societal bonds.
Does that answer your questions, or do you have additional accusations to make?
Tuck: “You totally ignored the biggest part of the story, which is the faith of the trapped miners and fixated upon the part you thought you could pick holes in.”
Are you kidding me? The TITLE of the ARTICLE is “HUMAN LOVE DEFIES DARWINIAN EXPLANATION”. The article spends four paragraphs erroneously attacking evolution, and uses the word ‘Faith’ twice. Yes, they asked for religious paraphernalia first. Amazing that religious people might put a priority on religious things, despite their uselessness. That doesn’t actually carry any weight for either creation or evolutionary theory.
SiteEditor: “The inventor of the MRI technology was a 6-day creationist. But since 6-day creationists are morons, you can’t trust that technology, so you’d better never use it.” You miss the basic problem. Being a creationist isn’t the problem; we don’t care what you believe and it doesn’t mean you can’t be plenty intelligent. The problem is when you put that biblical thinking to use on other people, and ignore facts that inconveniently contradict your faith — like trying to strip away rights from homosexuals because you think they’re sinners, or arguing that evolution isn’t true because ‘god’.
Are you planning to maybe stone adulterers or burn witches down the line? And should we go back to the theory that says Earth is the center of the universe like they did when they killed Galileo?
“…additional accusations…” Itch, are you becoming sensitive? Is it OK for you to make accusations but I should not? You know what they say, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Matt Ridley wrote a book on genetics called The Agile Gene, how nature turns on nurture. Interesting book by one who IS a geneticist. He is also the author of the bestseller called Genome. I think he quite convincingly points out that homosexuality is a learned behaviour. Psychologists used to say they had very high success rates in curing gays, so what has changed; methods, science or a successful gay lobby? The answer is clear.
Itch, you keep picking on us about gays but you miss the whole message; sexual promiscuity is bad whether it is homosexual or straight. There are health risks involved and lots of other negative aspects which have little or nothing to do with people’s opinion of those who engage in such things. Homosexuals are highlighted because they are so in your face, not because they are worse than other persons.
If you really cared you too would try to help them as opposed to being an enabler.
you asked, “Does that answer your questions…?” No, but thanks for trying. I too read those opinions which are opinions only and even those are debated.
Ian Tuck:
Let us continue this exercise in futility. Your childish option to mock my name has been noted.
“sexual promiscuity is bad whether it is homosexual or straight”
Ok! Sure; there’s lots of risks to promiscuity. STIs are a terrible health risk, and there’s a challenging social impact, and sometimes even issues of consent and the like — that goes across the board.
So you would then support Gay Marriage? If you’re against promiscuity and not just homophobic, you must support the idea of sanctifying monogamous relationships between consenting adults?
Just trying to clarify what the problem is, so we can address it more accurately.
How do you explain the people that put them thousands of feet underground and then walked away when the collapse happened . Yes the President made it a top priority because the people responsible left them to die.
Way to cherry pick your data.
And plenty of animals will protect the offspring of others. Gorrillas adopt orphans and I’ve seen more than one dog fight for the children of the family that owns it.
Etch, if that is your name then I do apologize for mocking it. I didn’t anticipate it would be your name, so please except my sincere apologies.
“So you would then support Gay Marriage?” There was a recent study I heard about which asked normal couples and gay couples if they had been faithful over the past year. 80% of the straight couples said they had been and only 2% of the gays. It is quite disturbing to think that 2 out of every ten married persons I know have been unfaithful in just the past year. The percentage of gays who have been unfaithful shows that gay marriage is just a farce. To be fair, I don’t know if the survey was done fairly or not, but the findings are not inconsistent with other surveys regarding sexual practices of gays.
“Just trying to clarify what the problem is, so we can address it more accurately.” Now you are not being straight. You are and were, fishing.
PrimevilKneivel, what planet are you from? Are you just visiting? “Way to cherry pick your data?” Animals, gorillas and dog fights? I do not know where you are coming from or in what direction you head. Have you been smoking something?
Ian, this might be the report you were referring to. Note they say that homosexuals know all this but don’t like talking about it publicly because they know that the implications are devastating for the advancement of their special rights political agenda.
The New York Times – January 28, 2010
Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret
By Scott James
When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy. “I take it as a gift that someone will be that open and honest and sharing with me,” said Rio, using the word “open” to describe their marriage. Love brought the middle-age couple together – they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women.
As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research.
A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage – one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.
New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years – about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.
None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.
According to the research, open relationships almost always have rules. That is how it works for Chris and James. Over drinks upstairs at the venerable Twin Peaks Tavern in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, they beamed as they recalled the day in June 2008 that they donned black suits and wed at City Hall, stunned by the outpouring of affection from complete strangers. “Even homeless people and bike messengers were congratulating us,” said Chris, 42. A couple since 2002, they opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs. But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers – they must both know the other men first. “We check in with each other on this an awful lot,” said James, 37.
That transparency can make relationships stronger, said Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book “It’s Not You, It’s Biology.” “The combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust,” Mr. Quirk, of Oakland, said. “The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”
Open relationships are not exclusively a gay domain, of course. Deb and Marius are heterosexual, live in the East Bay and have an open marriage. She belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and maintained her virginity until her wedding day at 34. But a few years later, when the relationship sputtered, both she and her husband, who does not belong to the church, began liaisons with others. “Our relationship got better,” she said. “I slept better at night. My blood pressure went down.” Deb and Marius also have rules, including restrictions on extramarital intercourse. “To us,” Marius said, “cheating would be breaking the agreement we have with each other. We define our relationship, not a religious group.”
So while the legal fight over same-sex marriage plays out, couples say the real battle is making relationships last – and their answers defy the prevailing definition of marriage. “In 1900, the average life span for a U.S. citizen was 47,” Mr. Quirk said. “Now we’re living so much longer, ‘until death do us part’ is twice as challenging.”
Etch, speaking of peer review, here’s to the value of peer review… it shows that even among scientists, personal morality is essential to good science and personal morality is determined by worldview and belief system, and the non-Christian worldview just doesn’t look like it’s churning out as much scientific integrity as is necessary to make the peer review process worth anything anymore. In too many places, peer review has just become a system to keep people who disagree with you from gaining academic credibility. I think that’s what happens when the immorality of atheism gains a certain level of control in the culture.
Washington Post – June 9, 2005
Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct
Degrees of Deception Vary in Poll; Researchers Say Findings Could Hurt the Field By Rick Weiss
Few scientists fabricate results from scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of others, but a surprising number engage in troubling degrees of fact-bending or deceit, according to the first large-scale survey of scientific misbehavior.
More than 5% of scientists answering a confidential questionnaire admitted to having tossed out data because the information contradicted their previous research or said they had circumvented some human research protections.
Ten percent admitted they had inappropriately included their names or those of others as authors on published research reports.
And more than 15% admitted they had changed a study’s design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a “gut feeling” they were inaccurate.
None of those failings qualifies as outright scientific misconduct under the strict definition used by federal regulators. But they could take at least as large a toll on science as the rare, high-profile cases of clear-cut falsification, said Brian Martinson, an investigator with the HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, who led the study appearing in today’s issue of the journal Nature.
“The fraud cases are explosive and can be very damaging to public trust,” Martinson said. “But these other kinds of things can be more corrosive to science, especially since they’re so common.”
The new survey also hints that much scientific misconduct is the result of frustrations and injustices built into the modern system of scientific rewards. The findings could have profound implications for efforts to reduce misconduct – demanding more focus on fixing systemic problems and less on identifying and weeding out individual “bad apple” scientists.
“Science has changed a lot in terms of its competitiveness, the level of funding and the commercial pressures on scientists,” Martinson said. “We’ve turned science into a big business but failed to note that some of the rules of science don’t fit well with that model.”
Scientific dishonesty has long been a simmering concern. Many suspect, for example, that Gregor Mendel, the Austrian monk whose plant-breeding experiments revealed with suspicious precision the basic laws of genetics, cooked his numbers along with his peas.
In recent decades a handful of cases have risen to the level of popular attention – the most famous, perhaps, involving David Baltimore, the Nobel laureate who in the mid-1980s heatedly defended his laboratory’s honor in a series of scathing congressional hearings led by Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.).
The prevalence of research misconduct has been uncertain, however, in part because the definitions of acceptable behavior have shifted. For scientists working with federal grant money, that issue got settled five years ago when the Office of Research Integrity – part of the Department of Health and Human Services – drafted a formal definition: “fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.”
About a dozen federally funded scientists a year are found to have breached that “FFP” standard – a tiny fraction of the scientific workforce – and punishment generally involves a ban on further federal grants. But no one had conducted a major survey asking scientists whether they are guilty of major misconduct or lesser, but arguably still serious, ethics lapses.
Martinson and two colleagues – Melissa Anderson and Raymond de Vries, both of the University of Minnesota – sent a survey to thousands of scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health and tallied the replies from the 3,247 who responded anonymously.
Just 0.3% admitted to faking research data, and 1.4% admitted to plagiarism. But lesser violations were far more common, including 4.7% who admitted to publishing the same data in two or more publications to beef up their résumés and 13.5% who used research designs they knew would not give accurate results.
Susan Ehringhaus, associate general counsel of the Association of American Medical Colleges, which has developed programs to enhance research ethics, said she welcomed the results. Her organization does not favor redefining federal research misconduct to include the many variants included in the survey, she said. However, she said, “we fully support the development of standards that go beyond the federal definition” for internal enforcement by academic or other institutions.
A preliminary analysis of other questions in the survey, not yet published, suggests a link between misconduct and the extent to which scientists feel the system of peer review for grants and advancement is unfair. That suggests those aging systems need to be revised, the researcher said.
“Scientists say, ‘This is nuts,’ so they break the rules, and then respect for the rules diminishes,” de Vries said. “If scientists feel that the process isn’t fair and the rich get richer and the rest get nothing, then perhaps we have to think how we can reallocate resources for science.”
Etch, peer review also didn’t help much to keep all those global warming activist radicals in the scientific world from cooking their books and getting their monkey scribbles published in credible journals.
Ian:
No worries about the name; it is an unusual one. I hope you can similarly forgive the finishing bite of my last comment, but I can’t help but feel that much of the conversation has been insincere despite my efforts to make it otherwise.
Regarding the Marriage statistics; I did some searching for statistics regarding infidelity and cheating, and I couldn’t find anything comparing rates between hetero and homosexuals (If you have a study I can look at, I’d appreciate it). I did however find a lot of conflicting data regarding infidelity in general; stats ranging from 10-45% of partners cheat. One even put the numbers as high as 57% of men having admitted to cheating in a relationship.
Ok; putting that aside, don’t you think there’s more to this? What causes these people to cheat? Or what causes the others to remain faithful? Do you think that if homosexuals are being less monogamous, it may be because of the societal stigma? Dismissing Gay Marriage as a farce, when it is barely legal in most places and only recently legal otherwise seems premature, don’t you think?
SiteEditor:
On the first article: I suppose we need to clarify — I thought we were talking about people having affairs, not consensual open-relationships. I’m sure you have misgivings about polyamory of any kind, but for the sake of my last comment and what I assumed Ian was referring to, I was thinking explicitly of people having sexual relationships with people other than their partner in violation of an agreement, implied or explicit.
On the second article: I’ll disregard your discriminatory remarks about atheists. The article raises some important points; however I’d like to see a comparison of researchers who been found to commit fraud against their religious affiliations. I’d be surprised if there was a significant difference between groups. I can say with fair confidence that being religious (regardless of domination) does nothing to reduce fraud.
However, the benefit of peer reviewed research is that you can’t really conspire your way through it. If anyone disagrees with your research or results, they have the option to repeat your experiment and publish their results. That’s the whole point. YOU can conduct experiments and check the results. There are agencies that will pay you to do this. Peer Review allows for open critical analysis of research; I can’t even fathom how someone would control it — it’d be like controlling the internet.
Regarding the Global warming bit — I am personally unconvinced about global warming. The email scandal, however, was ridiculous, and not on behalf of the scientists. The reality is that a lot of people who are against the research and aren’t scientists decided to pick apart a few out of context emails for things that looked suspicious. It would have been far more beneficial if they’d spent that amount of time looking at the actual data and attempting to reproduce or refute it.
If the global warming email scandal and all that it entailed was simply overblown, then scientists surely – being scientists – would weather the PR and political storms and hunker down to their work instead of allowing politics to influence science…
So what do we make of the resignation just the other day of yet another apparently highly respected scientist from the American Physical Society, with very harsh words about gross abuses of science among those trusted to pretend that science is a purely objective study and beyond ideological interference – oops, one of my sarcastic flourishes – in the global warming movement?
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind – simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
“If the global warming email scandal and all that it entailed was simply overblown, then scientists surely – being scientists – would weather the PR and political storms and hunker down to their work instead of allowing politics to influence science.”
Yes, because the world works in an idyllic way where crazy people with hidden and dishonest agendas can’t influence other people with sheer force and political influence. People couldn’t possibly be forced out of office for simply being unpopular, and there is no such thing as a scapegoat. Oh look, a flourish.
Etch
“Insincere?” Maybe flippant would be more accurate. Most persons come to mock and I find that entertaining as I mock them back. Sometimes a person comes along and engages in honest debate peppered with some sarcasm. When not talking face to face it is near impossible to differentiate between the two. I like sarcasm, but admittedly I like it more when it is aimed away from me.
Gay marriage; yes I am against gay marriage. I believe the traditional marriage between one man and one woman is proper. The gay lobby is setting their sites on Christian organizations and foisting their lifestyle on them under threat of the punishing Human Rights process. I speak out against gay marriage because I believe it is being used as a hammer to attack those with religious views against the lifestyle. If it really was just benign and they want to call their union marriage, I could care less, but when they push for rights to flaunt their lifestyle in the face of others, I object.
Much of the mocking against Christian Governance is because persons erroneously think it means foisting Christianity upon others, well I have the same arguments against the gay lobby. They wish to live their life in a certain way and force me to say it is normal and acceptable even though I do not believe it is.
I am not homophobic. The persons I know who are gay I try to be especially kind to them because I know others are not so kind so hopefully I bring a little ballance. People are people and deserve kindness, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept their choices as being proper. And by the way, the people I’ve noticed being openly hostile to gays do not proclaim any religious convictions, so, I think the open hostility towards Christians is unfounded. Christians are easy to pick on, by the gay lobby, because they have an identifiable reason to oppose homosexuality. That isn’t the case with persons who have no religious affiliation who don’t like it, so very little is said about them and when they are mentioned by the lying media, still somehow Christians are to blame.
Ian wrote: “The gay lobby is setting their sites on Christian organizations and foisting their lifestyle on them…”
How are they doing this? You’re imagining that this is happening – because it isn’t.
Ian cont’d: “but when they push for rights to flaunt their lifestyle in the face of others, I object.”
How are they pushing for “rights to flaunt their lifestyle”?? What does that even mean?
Ian cont’d: “They wish to live their life in a certain way and force me to say it is normal and acceptable even though I do not believe it is.”
No they don’t. You have the option to STFU about it – you know, live and let live. But no – you choose to spend your efforts denying them their love.
Ian cont’d: “I am not homophobic. The persons I know who are gay I try to be especially kind to them because I know others are not so kind so hopefully I bring a little ballance.”
Classic!! Too funnny! I just bet you sit around drinking beers with your gay buddies being “especially nice” to them! Ha!
Sorry Joe but it doesn’t appear I could dumb things down enough for you to understand so I will not waste my time you.
Sorry again Joe. That last answer was too personal. I should have said I do not wish to waste my time trying convince you, because you are unteachable. You personally are not a waist of time but trying to convince you regarding my opinion is.
It’s OK Ian… I didn’t think you had actual evidence or reasons to believe that “The gay lobby is setting their sites on Christian organizations and foisting their lifestyle on them”
Do you ever get tired of playing the persecuted christian?
The evidence, I think would be relatively easy to come up with Joe, but I think you’d deny it anyway, so there is no point in trying, now is there? Joe, you’ve shown yourself to be an anti-Christian, closed minded bigot who so much hates the truth you deny it even to the point of making yourself look silly.
Do you ever get tired of being a bigoted bully?
Ian wrote: “The evidence, I think would be relatively easy to come up with…”
And yet you refuse. You make blanket statements without backing them up – and when asked to provide your rationale for making the statements you refuse. It’s transparent Ian – everyone can see it!
Ian cont’d: “I think you’d deny it anyway, so there is no point in trying, now is there?”
Well if you ~did~ try you would be in a position to at least claim that you’d shown the evidence. I wouldn’t be able to claim that you refused to show the evidence (as I’m doing now).
As it stands now it looks like you have NO evidence. If you’re happy with that it’s cool with me!
Ian ends with: “Do you ever get tired of being a bigoted bully?”
Nope… just calling things like I see ‘em!
Ian, let me respond to some of your points here.
“I believe the traditional marriage between one man and one woman is proper.”
I respect that view, as it is fairly clear in the Christian definition. The problem arises that in most of the western world, marriage is a secular institution which people lace with religious ceremony, and it comes with certain rights and responsibilities. It’s a contract.
I have no problems with Christians or Churches or religious folk of any kind not wanting to perform a marriage for a Gay couple, but I’m not ok with denying people the right to join an institution because of religious objections — and, if that isn’t enough for religious people — if they absolutely must not allow gay people to be married, even if not by a church, then the only other option I believe is to remove the government sanctions provided to it, and have it be a ceremonial title only.
“…they push for rights to flaunt their lifestyle in the face of others, I object.”
The only thing I can assume you mean by this is pride parades. But don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical? Not everyone is Christian, but Christians get a lot of opportunities to ‘flaunt’. The have the most publicly observed holidays, large elaborate churches, all sorts of more casual decorations and ornaments for daily life. If you feel uncomfortable when someone tells you they’re gay, I can relate, because I’m uncomfortable when someone tells me that they’re devoutly christian; but I’m not about to tell them that they can’t. I’d be willing to agree to tell everyone to stop or no one to stop, but you have to agree that singling out any group could start a slippery slope.
“… persons erroneously think it means foisting Christianity upon others, well I have the same arguments against the gay lobby”
Considering that the ‘gay lobby’ is pretty adamant that people can’t change their sexual orientation, I can’t imagine they have any interest in trying to force people to be gay. However, it is explicitly stated in several places on this site that part of ChristianGovernance’s agenda is to replace secular law with Christian law (see “ChristianGovernance’s Ontario election agenda” article).
That would be bad enough as ‘foisting’ goes, except that the Ten Commandments are generally considered to be the most obvious of Christian laws, and it STARTS with a command to worship the Christian god and no other. At it’s most liberal, you’re outlawing all religions except Christianity (and possibly Judaism, Islam and Christian offshoots), and at it’s strictest, it rules out all but the state’s flavor of Christ, including atheism and agnosticism of any kind. So forgive me if I’m concerned that you may be trying to force everyone to convert.
“the people I’ve noticed being openly hostile to gays do not proclaim any religious convictions, so, I think the open hostility towards Christians is unfounded. ”
I have had the opposite experience. The most fervent discrimination I’ve seen has alway been fueled by religion. Perhaps one or both of us lacks sufficient perspective to judge. However, if the behavior of people is consistent — there’s a lot more Christians than anyone else in Canada or the Western world in general, and that would imply that as a group they are committing a larger sum of trouble. Clearly we need better information here.
Etch, you have very good argumentation, but you are still wrong. Yes we do need better information. Atheist like to quote some difficult scriptures and many of them are above my ability to properly respond to, but let me say this; Christ came to fulfill the law and we are no longer under the law, but under grace.
To quote certain parts of the law from the old testament without weighing the ramifications of what Christ did on the cross only shows the person has little understanding of scripture. I am not trying to be insulting to you Etch.
OK Joe I’ll bite. There is evidence for the flood in sedimentary deposits even under the antarctic ice. There are stories of a world wide flood in every culture, including Eskimos. Coincidence? Not likely.
Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus: Atheists and Jews along with Christians agree that Jesus was crucified and was buried. As long as you are with me to this point the resurrection becomes rather obvious in that those who knew Him claimed He was resurrected from the dead and they ate with Him and spoke to Him several times over a period of forty days. An elaborate hoax becomes very unlikely when you consider how His closest friends died terrible torturous deaths in an attempt to get them to deny Christ. None of the disciples denied Him and only one died naturally. Nobody will suffer and die for a lie, Joe, and very few would, even for the truth.
These are but two little examples of where science and history support the scripture accounts. You could go back about 1500 years before the resurrection and read about how Christ will be treated and killed. Again, about 1500 years before crucifiction was even thought of. Coincidence? If you want it to be Joe, then I guess that’s what it is for you, but not for me. I don’t believe because of the evidence, I believe because it is true. The evidence simply supports those beliefs.
The thing with the evidence, you ask me to show you, is that you will not accept it as evidence. Those who wish to deny can always refuse to see.
Joe I just realized I was giving you the evidence for the wrong conversation. Sorry about that.
Two problems Ian:
In foremost; as I understand it the vast majority of the Ten Commandments are repeated, as law, in the New Testament. And if what you’re saying is true and that Christ issued no laws to follow, but rather is more requesting that people abide by certain rules, then why is there such a political drive to enforce those rules on people who wish to break them? Not to be crass, but isn’t it their choice to go to hell?
“… but let me say this; Christ …”
And this is the big problem, and I’m not sure I can properly explain it to you — that’s my shortcoming, not yours. Obviously, I am not Christian. I don’t believe the bible, in any part. I’m aware that there are some historical elements in the book, but Sherlock Holmes can make the same claim, as can most religions and their texts.
So whenever you, or any religious person, starts using their religious text to justify their claims, I’m a little lost. They just don’t carry any weight, or at least no more weight than any other fiction. You have two major battles to fight before you can even get me that far. You need to convince me that something beyond nature, supernatural, can exist. And it needs to be more logically persuasive than the God-of-the-Gaps. Even if you can do that, you need to then ALSO convince me that Christianity is the accurate depiction of the supernatural world. Because unless you do that, Christianity is still only as authoritative as Hinduism, Scientology, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto, or what have you.
It may seem unfair, but I’ll argue with you about Christian scripture because I’m not concerned about changing your faith. I’m concerned about how you use your faith, and if I can use that context to convince you of my points of view, I’ve succeeded. However, you can’t similarly convince me.
Understand that I’m not here because I want to proselytize or make you renounce faith — I’m here because I’m terrified about what you want to do to people who I see as innocent. I’m here because I’m afraid of the consequences of what more religion in government would bring, because I feel that it would make our country — our world — a much worse place to live for many, and only marginally nicer for a small few.
The separation of church and state is a Christian concept which has been hijacked and used against us as separation of church from state. Living by Christian concepts or returning to our Christian heritage is also not the same thing as shoving my beliefs down your throat. As I said before, do no murder is a Christian concept, do not steal is also. I think you countered with the first commandment to serve the Lord God and Him only. It is a good question and deserves an answer. Coercion to believe our God goes against our beliefs. It has to be by free will or it isn’t real so would be meaningless and hurtful, both to the church and to the individual. I am unsure as to how to adequately answer your question, so does that help at all?
“I’m here because I’m terrified about what you want to do to people who I see as innocent.” You and I have exactly the same goals. I can say the very same thing, although from my perspective your fears are unfounded and I am fearful of the humanist’s agenda to indoctrinate our little ones.
We also agree that force feeding any religion upon the populace is not an attractive proposition and I would stand with you to oppose such actions, even if it were my own faith being forced.
Let me try to explain. Christianity is about love for God and for our fellow man. When Jesus was asked which is the greatest commandment He said. “Love the Lord God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.” To force persons to believe has absolutely nothing to do with loving God or our fellow man, it is disrespectful and would generate animosity, not Christianity. It is quite simply anti-Christian to engage in such things.
“I’m concerned about how you use your faith…” That is a good concern, Etch. I too have concerns on how persons use their faith and although unpleasant, we should be challenged when we are wrong. That is totally proper.
As far as proving to you that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life, (the only way) I am not sure such a thing is possible. I think it is a choice you have to make in your own heart to believe. I can point you towards things which solidify that belief to me, but proof?
You probably think what you believe as far as evolution is fact and not faith. Would that be fair to say? Check out the evolution of man and you’ll find the bones which were used to “prove” man’s evolution have been known to science for forty years or more to be wrong or even faked and yet, to my knowledge the teaching of the evolution of man continues unchanged in our school books. That is faith in the theory of evolution, not fact, because in order to be fact there needs sufficient evidentiary proof, which is lacking.
Ian wrote: “do no murder is a Christian concept, do not steal is also”
These are ~human~ concepts that predate Christianity… that Christians include this in their doctrine does not make them the sole owners of these things.
Ian cont’d: “Coercion to believe our God goes against our beliefs.”
But if you want to make our country’s laws reflect your Christian laws then wouldn’t it be included? The 1st commandment I mean. If you wish to put the 10 commandments into law how would you avoid the 1st one? Would atheism be illegal?
Ian cont’d: “I think it is a choice you have to make in your own heart to believe.”
I agree here. And people should be free to go wherever their heart takes them. To me it’s atheism.
You’re sounding very rational and reasonable here Ian!
Until…
Ian cont’d: “You probably think what you believe as far as evolution is fact and not faith.”
It’s not actually a “belief” – it is based on facts… many many facts. The theory of evolution is the best description (to-date) for the fact of evolution. That living things evolve ~is~ a fact – and the theory best describes this fact. So evolution is both fact and theory in a way.
Ian cont’d: “…the bones which were used to “prove” man’s evolution have been known to science for forty years or more to be wrong or even faked…”
There aren’t any “bones which were used to ‘prove’ man’s evolution”… There is no single set of bones that are the basis for the evidence of evolution. There are millions of fossils – from amoeba, fish, birds, primates… In the entire set of fossils each and every one CONFIRMS the theory of evolution. Every one.
It would take A LOT more than one set of fake fossils to take down evolution. I don’t think you quite understand how much evidence there is – in fact, without fossils we still have enough evidence to say conclusively that the theory is true. DNA is the strongest evidence to date (I believe).
I don’t mean to sound rude – but you really need to look at more of the evidence for evolution. If you get all of your information from creationists then you’re going to be sorely lacking knowledge (which is evidenced by your “bones which were used to ‘prove’ man’s evolution” line).
“These are ~human~ concepts that predate Christianity” Is that right Joe? Prove it.
Joe, you are showing your religion in that you refuse to look at anything but what you think supports your religion. I specifically was referring to the evolution of man and you went to evolution in general. You talk about me only looking at on side of this theory and forming my opinion while you do the exact same thing. There is a word for that Joe, but since I am unsure if you are genuine or not I’ll not use it at this time.
I think I can safely say Christians have never been terribly uncomfortable with the theory of evolution being taught as long as the other theories are also taught and give the people enough credit to determine which have credibility. I think even youngsters will figure out which is more credible and I suspect you think that too, so what is the big deal of showing people enough respect to decide?
Referring to evolution you said, “It’s not actually a “belief” – it is based on facts… many many facts.” Joe, you simply can’t have it both ways, it is ether theory or it is fact. I could also make the same statement about the creation theory being theistic. Maybe I’d not say it is “based” on fact but I could easily say it is supportable by fact, many, many facts.
Joe, you discredit yourself when you claim there is no faith involved in what you believe.
I’m a little surprised that you’re disputing this Ian, but I’ll play along.
The easiest example would be in ancient Egypt. They had laws for many aspects of life – most notably robbery. They treated robbers harshly back then – they had a problem with tomb robbers.
I’m not sure if this commenting system will allow me to include links so I’ll add another comment after this one containing links.
And there’s always ancient Rome – hundreds and hundreds of years BC – with their laws outlawing murder and robbery among others.
Now – what about the evidence for evolution part of my comment? Anything to say about that?
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/law.htm
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/administration/law.html
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ancient_Law
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270075
I posted some supporting links for ancient laws… I’ll wait to see if they appear after moderation.
In the mean time…
Ian wrote: “I specifically was referring to the evolution of man and you went to evolution in general.”
There is no difference! Evolution is evolution no matter what species you are. It’s like discussing car engines and saying ‘but I was talking about Fords and you go right to the combustable engine’ – it’s the same thing.
I think one of the stumbling block with creationists is the idea that humans are special. We’re not. We are simple a different species of primate – an animal like all the other animals on earth.
Ian cont’d: “I think I can safely say Christians have never been terribly uncomfortable with the theory of evolution being taught as long as the other theories are also taught and give the people enough credit to determine which have credibility.”
I wouldn’t mind EVERY ~scientific~ theory being discussed ~science~ class – but that excludes the unscientific idea of creationism/ID.
I don’t mind exposing people to creationism/ID – in it’s proper place. Theology class would be a great place!
Ian cont’d: “I think even youngsters will figure out which is more credible and I suspect you think that too, so what is the big deal of showing people enough respect to decide?”
The “big deal” is that there are only a limited number of hours with which to teach. If you had to include every idea that humans believe – and give them all a place in science class – then we’d have to teach alchemy in chemistry class, astrology in astronomy class, ID in biology class… where does it end? We’d run out of time discussing ~real~ science if this were to happen.
I’m not against teaching creationism/ID – just not in science classes.
Ian cont’d: “you simply can’t have it both ways, it is ether theory or it is fact.”
You didn’t understand what I wrote then… The ToE is the best solution mankind has come up with to-date for the FACT of evolution. There is no denying that living things evolve – this is the FACT. The theory explains this fact the best (and it’s only getting better every day!)
It’s like gravity – just a ‘theory’ too btw. Things fall to the ground – this is a FACT. We call this falling “gravity”. Now, the theory of gravity is the best explanation to-date for the fact of gravity.
Does that make more sense?
The Christian tradition is the Judeo-Christian tradition stretching back to the Jewish nation and before that to the beginning of history as recounted in the Bible, and that’s always been the position we’ve maintained, so critics trying to draw on pre-Christian history for evidence that something preceded God’s people, living in obedience to His revealed will are establishing their own convenient parameters on the argument.
@SiteEditor: That is more like the response I’d expect from a Christian… Much more convenient than trying to deny that pre-christian society didn’t have rules against murder and theft.
Thus there’s nothing I can say about your answer – it can’t be refuted. I don’t believe it of course – because there is no god… but I can’t refute it (like god itself!)
The Christian tradition is the Judeo-Christian tradition stretching back to the Jewish nation and before that to the beginning of history as recounted in the Bible,
Would you accept non-Middle-Eastern arguments, or are you going to assert that everything that happened pre-1 C.E. is part of the “Christian tradition”? Even in parts of the world to which the precursor religion (Judaism, which you are usurping) had not spread in any significant fashion?
(cf. the Roman example given above.)
I don’t kniow what you’re asking. The comment you are responding to seems to answer your question. I’m refering to who are God’s people. After Christ’s death and resurrection, they were Christians. Prior to that, it was Jewish people, or a remnant among them. Today’s Christian or “New Testament” ethics and ethical obligations are a continuation of “Old Testament” ethics. The entire Bible is the Christian Bible. We first learn that it’s wrong to kill in the first books of the Bible, not in the New Testament books, so that continuity and the origins of our ethics stretch back through the Jews as God’s people, and beyond to Abraham and ultimately to Adam and Eve. So as Joe accurately noted, this position can’t be refuted – except by way of exposing the unreliability of the Bible as the source of this information and conviction.
@StevenBlack:
The way I read SiteEditor’s comment was that the christian tradition and it’s laws covers from “the beginning of time” all the way to now.
It’s the perfect (theist) answer. There is no rebuttal. It’s as beautiful as the ‘god has always existed’ answer for who created god… you know, as far as non-answers go.