Althouse: "If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African..."

May 28, 2012

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African..."

"... that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive, then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

Says the famous paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey. That's a funny quote, isn't it? It starts out so big. If only everyone would accept evolution, then... then what? What would follow? He doesn't say World Peace. He says a chance of a better response to challenges.

I'm sure the people who don't believe in evolution think if only everybody would believe that God created human beings in His own image, that we'd have a better chance of responding better to challenges.

Here's a poll about what works, pragmatically, not about what is true. That is: DO NOT use this poll to express your belief in the existence of God and His role with respect to the creation/evolution of human beings:

Anticipating your possible need to express your belief in what is true, I am providing this additional poll:

148 comments:

Fr. Denis Lemieux said...: The second poll is flawed. As a Roman Catholic, and in accordance with Catholic theology, I would choose the first two options, which are not contradictory.; 5/28/12, 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Humankind arose from evolution, with no divine plan or supervision at any point.... through a process of the strong killing the weak.

Yet somehow this basic mechanism will magically draw lines of behavior to impede and limit the strong.

Which is itself an attempt at strength through words, ideas, and persuasion.

Which may work until the physically strong realize that words don't defend physically weak people, and we're right back where it all started.; 5/28/12, 9:07 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "The second poll is flawed. As a Roman Catholic, and in accordance with Catholic theology, I would choose the first two options, which are not contradictory."

I think you need to pick one or the other. I thought Catholics would pick the second one, but I'm not an expert on how you can straddle those two.

Were there stages of development going from various mammals that emerged, with a common ancestor for human beings and apes?

What is the alternative in the middle?; 5/28/12, 9:12 AM
traditionalguy said...: God created Human Beings. How else could you explain an Ann Althouse?

I have been listening to Bill Bryson's "Short History of Nearly Everything" which is on Audible Books now. Listen to that and try to tell me that Darwin and Leakey knew anything of human origins except hopeful fairy tales.

Life is extraordinary in its long creation and all encoded by an encoder. If you still think that was an accident, then you are profoundly ignorant.; 5/28/12, 9:12 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I mean for the second one to include God foreseeing and intending that the process produce humankind, but I understand how Catholics and others might dislike getting lumped together with Deist type people.

Please choose option #2 if that is what you believe.; 5/28/12, 9:15 AM
ndspinelli said...: Intelligent design.; 5/28/12, 9:18 AM
Hagar said...: "The ways of the Lord are not our ways," or something like that.

Evolution seems to be the way it was done, but how it got started we do not know, nor whether it has been left on autopilot or may have been nudged along a little here and there on occasion.

Youse pays your money and takes youse chances.; 5/28/12, 9:19 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Sorry, but I went for the cold, harsh reality:

There's nobody here but us, and we'd better make the best of it, merely for the sake of making the best of it.

Talk of God is part of the problem, and getting people to focus on what's before us is one of those challenges we face, because anything that takes our eyes off the ball allows us to miss our shot. And we only get one.

We're not "all African," BTW - we are what we are. I had a chance to go to Africa once, filled with thoughts of "the mother land," and decided - quite forcefully - that what I most wanted to do was go home.

I'm an American. A man of "The New World." I was born, and live, in the future of this planet, not it's past.

How I got here is irrelevant to me - where we're going is all - because, if we don't move forward, the rest of those guys behind us have to start over, so we'd better keep going if we're to make any contribution to their lives that matters.

We are a dream in some starving kid's mind, so, Goddamnit, we'd better make it a good one,...; 5/28/12, 9:21 AM
Kathryn said...: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Neil deGrasse Tyson.

My view: A unified acceptance of (or belief in) evolution and atheism would stop humans from acting in the name of their God, a cause of much of the disharmony in the world, and inspire the search for real "solutions to global challenges".; 5/28/12, 9:22 AM
David said...: The first poll is flawed. You left out "God watches over and punishes his creation, humanity, for their sins."

God as Santa Claus is a very American idea. For most of history, people have relied more on God as disciplinarian, hence Edaward's great success spreading Christian awakening with "Sinners in the hands of an angry God."; 5/28/12, 9:30 AM
ndspinelli said...: Kathryn, I believe more people have been killed than saved in the name of God/Allah/Yahweh/ etc. However, that is a product of organized religion, which myself and many eschew. I have a very strong faith in God, but do not abide organized religion. God wants us to believe in him and to help each other here on earth. It's no more complicated than that.; 5/28/12, 9:32 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Crack, with all due respect -- I didn't think Leakey meant his statement to be backward-looking, but rather that, given our common origin, racial distinctions are arbitrary and pointless.; 5/28/12, 9:33 AM
TWM said...: I chose #2. Didn't realize it was the Catholic in me that made me do so.; 5/28/12, 9:36 AM
TWM said...: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Neil deGrasse Tyson."

"Unless the scientists are lying, like they often do about me" ~ Global Warming; 5/28/12, 9:37 AM
pm317 said...: I don't like the first poll. It is not a question of either or. Every individual needs to work on their healthy disposition towards life given whatever means that work for them. Leaders in positions of power should do the same with statecraft, commerce and such. Collectively, that would result in harmony.

WV: vissionary; 5/28/12, 9:39 AM
Sorin said...: The premise to your question is flawed. You begin with a false assumption that the physical design of the human body is in the image of God. “Let us make man in our image” refers to our mind not our body. What?; 5/28/12, 9:45 AM
edutcher said...: On the first one, we had a pretty good idea of what happens when the "survival of the fittest" types get the reins of power in their hands through most of the 20th Century.

Mao, Uncle Joe, (Godwin Alert) - and those were just the big ones.

Not a pretty picture.

So I went with #1 on the first poll.

As for the second, there are some great gaping holes in evolution that Darwin hoped would be plugged, but haven't been.

I can live with the idea of there being a God and man evolving over time (and have for most of my life), but I'm coming around to the idea that we didn't evolve.

(sorry, Crack, that wasn't the question)

traditionalguy said...

God created Human Beings. How else could you explain an Ann Althouse?

Interesting way to compliment a lady, tg.

PS No problem here being considered Catholic and something of a Deist.; 5/28/12, 9:45 AM
Sorin said...: "God created Human Beings. How else could you explain an Ann Althouse?"
Although she is quite attractive,
it is her mind that is sublime and the reason we read her thoughts.; 5/28/12, 9:48 AM
Paco Wové said...: "...that stages of development of culture are all interactive..."

Huh? What is that supposed to mean?; 5/28/12, 9:49 AM
ricpic said...: "We are all African" is crap. "Color is superficial" is crap. "Stages of development are interactive" is meaningless. Other than that, great speech Leakey.

When did Paul Simon turn into Molly Picon?; 5/28/12, 9:49 AM
cubanbob said...: Kathryn said...
Given the last century's example of how bad atheism is in practice when it becomes the official basis for societal morality the 'cure' for religeon is worse than the disease.

There is no disputing that Tyson is right in the sense that the laws of nature exist whether or not we believe in them, human society without an external fear mechanism will result in anarchy. The FBI supposedly did a study a long time ago that concluded that a small fraction of the population would never knowingly break the law under almost any set of circumstances, an equally small fraction would break the law under almost any set of circumstances they could get away with it and the rest would brake the law if the the probability of getting caught was low and the punishment if caught was minor.

The problem with both science and religeon is and has always been (and will probably be for the forceable future) is the initiation point of creation.
Whether or not God exists is ultimately un-knowable but God is necessary for the existance for of inherent rights and liberties and for public morality and ethics which are the core of the legal system and a functioning society. The last century has shown that the State as God is a horrific failure.; 5/28/12, 9:50 AM
Paddy O said...: It's called Idealism. If only people understood!

The only trouble is that history shows that when people understand they replace one orientating ideology with another. And the other often, eventually always, involves killing lots of other people.

Tis why German Idealism foundered in the trenches of WWI. The birthplace of Liberal theology and Christian Democracy because one of the most barbaric places on earth during the 20th century.

There is nothing more naive than Idealism. And its perniciously naive because it's almost always the smartest folks in the room who fall for it.; 5/28/12, 9:51 AM
tsj said...: With respect to poll #1, I was surprised by the result. I tried to think of it in terms of how many people have been (and are being) killed due to religion compared to how many have been (and are being) killed due to a belief in evolution.

I reached a different conclusion than the majority.

For what it's worth, I believe neither is the most likely to eventually bring peace and harmony.

If we are to end disharmony among the people of the world, I believe it most likely to happen due to free and unfettered exchange of ideas.

Unfortunately I believe that securing such free and unfettered communication will, on occasion, require armed conflict. That will of course result in disharmony among people of the world.; 5/28/12, 9:55 AM
ricpic said...: God made separate peoples, not one people. Disharmony is therefore natural and nothing to be overcome. But of course in a world besmeared with liberal dogma what I have just said is hate speech to be wiped out by the forces of tolerance.; 5/28/12, 9:56 AM
Paddy O said...: "DO NOT use this poll to express your belief in the existence of God and His role with respect to the creation/evolution of human beings:"

Tag: domineering bullshit.; 5/28/12, 9:56 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Crack will have you stay focused on this shadow world, brilliantly focused because that's all there is. All there is can be seen and known, so focus!

The good thing about that is you are all there is, you're the top. The tippy top of the topmost top. There is nothing beyond you, nothing greater. You are it, the apex of evolution. You are not a shadow person, you are a solid 3-d person and there is nothing beyond this reality that is seen and known that is casting the a shadow in 3-d that is us, no, that is not seen and that is not known so that cannot possibly be real. No. This is all there is. Basically, your order is God of all this right here.

My brother got in the car and started off on the war between science and religion, my cousin was there too. It was a fresh subject for him and he started talking about dates of bones. I was driving and everything he said was nearly irrelevant so I stayed focused on driving so I don't know what he said, actually, I must admit that, but when I parked the car I told him that science and religion are not at odds because they address separate things; science seeks to figure out physical reality and religion is about values, it address what to do with all that. They are not mutually exclusive. Is it so hard to embrace evolution in God's plan?

He was having none of it. Still fresh with the previous guy's speaking. Then a month later I recognized my own sentence coming out of his mouth. Recognized it because I had to think it up back there. He adapted the view somewhere along the way as if he had thought it himself and that's the last I've heard of that.; 5/28/12, 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Let me rephrase properly.

"The good thing about science to scientists is that what they say is true is true even if later they say it isn't true."

Nice work when you can get it.; 5/28/12, 10:02 AM
Paco Wové said...: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I would argue that this is a misconstrual of what 'science' is, although I think I understand the point of what Tyson is trying to say. Science isn't a set of Truths, written in stone -- if it were that, it would just be another religion -- science is a method and process. The ideal is that the method will allow you to gather new information in an efficient and ideology-free manner; like many ideals, this is often approached but not achieved. That's part of the reason why all 'truths' obtained via the scientific method are provisional and subject to further revision. (Some are more provisional than others, of course.); 5/28/12, 10:03 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: The world "will respond better to global challenges" when it is economically advantageous to do so.

Academic inquiries into things like the descent of man are precisely that; academic.

Interesting, if you care, but the purpose is organization, which promotes efficiency.; 5/28/12, 10:04 AM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/12, 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: God watches over and loves His Creation, humanity.

We tried that belief, didn't we?

Not really.

Not wholeheartedly.; 5/28/12, 10:27 AM
Seeing Red said...: --My view: A unified acceptance of (or belief in) evolution and atheism would stop humans from acting in the name of their God, a cause of much of the disharmony in the world, and inspire the search for real "solutions to global challenges".---

Good luck w/the enviro whackos.; 5/28/12, 10:31 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Humankind arose from evolution, with no divine plan or supervision at any point.... through a process of the strong killing the weak."

This is not how evolution works. Evolutionary change is random, with no innate advancing or forward movement, as such, and it can be mere chance or unique climatic havoc that results in one strain of evolutionary development surviving while another dies out.

That said, it is considered that, in general, those adaptive changes that provide advantages for survival in a given environment will flourish, while those evolutionary strains with adaptive changes which provide lesser or no advantage will tend to die out over time.; 5/28/12, 10:31 AM
jimspice said...: I get a kick out of Althouse science posts.; 5/28/12, 10:33 AM
Bender said...: How did God get dragged into this quote by Leakey about RACISM, not evolution??; 5/28/12, 10:36 AM
Paco Wové said...: Leakey's argument seems to boil down to "If everybody just agreed with me, things would be fine". Which hardly seems like an insight original to Leakey. The Post would have done him a bigger favor by not publishing such banalities.; 5/28/12, 10:39 AM
Bender said...: Moreover, the objection that the anti-evolutionists have against the theory of evolution is not that human beings have changed in superficial ways (such as skin color) over time, but that life "evolved" from inanimate ooze and that homo sapiens evolved from a different species.

Even the anti-evolutionists are sophisticated enough to not have any real objection to Leakey's main point here about RACISM.; 5/28/12, 10:41 AM
damikesc said...: Evolution and religion fit together fine for me. The Bible gives the story. Evolution explains how it happened. It's not like the Bible claims humans were on Earth from the get go and the concept of time to God as opposed to the concept of time to man is enormously different.

Were there stages of development going from various mammals that emerged, with a common ancestor for human beings and apes?

Life appeared over two days in the Bible. 2 days to God = how many days to humanity? How many years? Centuries? Millenia.

What was the LAST thing He created? Humans. We weren't first by any means.

It, to me, seems highly unlikely that the world is at it is solely by a long string of accidents.

My view: A unified acceptance of (or belief in) evolution and atheism would stop humans from acting in the name of their God, a cause of much of the disharmony in the world, and inspire the search for real "solutions to global challenges".

Atheism killed more than 100 million people last century. I don't see that being an improvement.; 5/28/12, 10:42 AM
Jon Burack said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/12, 10:45 AM
Jon Burack said...: I see no contradiction at all between a belief in god and an acceptance of theory of evolution via natural selection. What I find odd is the notion that evolutionary theory provides some sort of basis for a sense of human brotherhood. Historically speaking, many of the most virulent forms of nationalist and racist divisiveness (which arose in the decades before WWI) based themselves on Darwinian ideas about natural selection. They may have been distortions of Darwinian theory admixed with racist mumbo-jumbo, in which each ethnic or national group constructed its own self-serving hierarchy of races, always with themselves on top. Still, that is the way evolution was used much more often than any other way, up through WWII. The issue Ann raises, as I see it, is whether a non-religious basis exists on which fundamental values other than predatory ones can be grounded. I do not think so. If the universe is cold and meaningless matter in random motion, I see no way to defend any ethical principle as anything more than subjective and arbitrary. I admit the jury is out on this.; 5/28/12, 10:48 AM
Bender said...: “Let us make man in our image” refers to our mind not our body. What?

It is a little more sophisticated than that. True, scripture here does not mean that God is anthropomorphic, God does not have the appearance of some old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud in heaven.

But our bodies ARE made in His likeness and image in the sense that "man" is made male and female, we are social beings, made for relationship in a loving and fruitful communion of persons, just as the Triune God is the relationship of a loving communion of three persons in one divine being who is creative and fruitful.

That we are made in the image of God does not mean just any generic God, but rather, we are made in the image of the Trinity.; 5/28/12, 10:52 AM
Robert Cook said...: "God made separate peoples, not one people. Disharmony is therefore natural and nothing to be overcome. But of course in a world besmeared with liberal dogma what I have just said is hate speech...."

No, it's just ignorant.

Disharmony arises from our animal natures: we're driven by the need to find food, above all. In nature, adequate sustenance can be scarce so animals must compete for access to acquire the available sustenance, or prey upon other animals for sustenance.

As human beings--the animal that makes tools and bends the environment to his needs--we have the capacity to provide sufficient sustenance--and shelter--and care--to all. However, our capacity to think abstractly--to imagine all the resources that could be ours--joins with our animal drive to compete for food--for resources--and so rather than live in a cooperative environment of harmony and sharing of resources that would be advantageous to all, we continue in a competitive fight to gain advantage for ourselves at the expense of and over others. We strive to gain power and store up wealth beyong that which we could ever expend, and our fight against others for advantage--the vestige of our animal beginnings--will destroy us, and in time our existence on this planet will be be forgotten.; 5/28/12, 10:54 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Atheism killed more than 100 million people last century. I don't see that being an improvement."

"Atheism" did no such thing. Men driven by a ruthless will to power accomplished that, and of that there is no monopoly among believers or non-believers.

Look at the slaughter of indigenous Americans that allowed us to expand westward...were we driven by avowed atheists in our own genocidal campaigns?; 5/28/12, 10:59 AM
Bender said...: As for the origin of man --

Most evolutionist/anthropologists subscribe to the single source theory -- that human beings all originated from a single mother.

That certainly would seem to make more sense than genetic mutation occurring spontaneously in multiple areas over the earth, so as to provide multiple mothers. A single spontaneous mutation is unlikely enough, and multiple identical mutations all happening at the same time is not a rational theory.; 5/28/12, 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Gak, that article. I know we're all prone to imagine that our narrow fields of expertise make us worth listening to on How to Fix the World, but I think I've seen Coca-Cola commercials that exhibit more intellectual sophistication.

Sheesh, so "we're all African". (Drum roll! World views rocked to their foundations! Mind shackles vaporized!) In some sense yes, in other, equally true and important senses, no. So what and now what?

Skeptics will all change when presented with new discoveries? Dude, most people don't understand evolutionary theory, or climate change, or whatever, and don't much care, either. Just about nothing hinges on whether the public in general believes in evolution, not even technically related issues like "combat[ting] new pathogens". (The earnest commenters at the NYT never seem to notice that the U.S. and its schools were just as full of fundies and religion, if not more so, in the days when it was the undisputed world scientific leader. For that matter, I'd bet good money that not 1 out of 10 of those tsk-ing commenters really understands why evolution is true, or could avoid ending up as the floor mop if compelled to defend his belief against a third-string intelligent-designer huckster.)

Seriously, why do many of these ostensible defenders of science and reason, when they get the itch to go all Grand Visiony, always end up sounding as trite and naïve as a Unitarian cat lady?; 5/28/12, 11:04 AM
Bender said...: In addition to a shared belief in a single source, a common ancestoral mother, another thing that atheistic evolutionists and anti-evolutionists agree on is that the disharmony of human kind was not caused by God. Human beings are responsible for the disharmony and evil and caused suffering.; 5/28/12, 11:04 AM
traditionalguy said...: Interesingly, scripture sees the mind and the very life within descendants of Adam to be the breath of God imparted to a clay statue by bending down His mouth to Adam's mouth like a lifeguard's ressucitation. That is a rather intimate act of a God who mwants a relationship with us.

Then after various Covenants with Noah, Abraham, and David, then the Lamb of God appears and mentions that, "You must be born again of the Spirit of God."

Also interestingly ahe promise of eternal life from a loving creator God is still essential to human hope and happiness. Ask Tim Tebow.

Without man accepting the gift of faith in God, he is left to glamorize his meaning in life as the glory from being part of a Zombie Army marching to death. Excuse me if I pass on that one, even at the risk of being labeled a cult member by my friend.; 5/28/12, 11:05 AM
Dante said...: Females encouraged males to compete with each other for mating rights, selecting both those who are strong as well as aggressive. This competition has been utilized by states, or possibly even by social genetic selection, to further the group's ability to exist. Especially in humans, it extends to the active recruitment of aggressive males to kill of competing groups.

To stop the fighting, an external threatening force has to arise, to help redefine the group as all. I don't think it's going to happen. AGW theory is an example of that kind of external threatening force, but it relies on group guilt. That's not going to work, as it ignores the true nature of people.; 5/28/12, 11:09 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Without man accepting the gift of faith in God, he is left to glamorize his meaning in life...."

There is no meaning to glamorize; we're an accident of the universe, and our time here brief.; 5/28/12, 11:09 AM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/12, 11:10 AM
Mitch H. said...: The greatest sadness? To believe both 1a, and 2c, at the same time.; 5/28/12, 11:13 AM
Ken said...: Robert Cook,

"Atheism" did no such thing.

Atheism killed hundreds of millions of people the same way religion burned thousands at the stake.; 5/28/12, 11:18 AM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/12, 11:21 AM
Cedarford said...: I find it funny Richard Leaky asserts evolution was dominant in human development, but as a Kenya resident, infused with 3rd World PC that once homo sapiens developed 200,000 years ago, evolution stopped.
That there are no signs of evolution in separate human populations...color is an artificial distinction...and all home sapiens are the same in terms of potentials and liabilities.

WE are NOT all African. Our rootstock is in Africa, so the claim is technically valid in the sense that "all horses, donkeys, zebras are North American" becuse the 1st ones of the Equus genera came from there.
But the DNA is showing significant mutations in the Out of Africa population, and showing signs the Out of Africa population intermarried, as the Chinese long have claimed in disputing a sole Out of Africa origin - with Neanderthals, Denisovians, homo erectus in China and SE Asia.; 5/28/12, 11:22 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Atheism killed hundreds of millions of people the same way religion burned thousands at the stake."

In other words, as I said, not at all, or, only incidentally.

It is our will to power--our animal drive to seize power and resources and advantage for ourselves--that causes our violence against others; our transient philosophical or ideological beliefs may provide us with comforting rationales for our campaigns of conquest and domination, but they do not cause such behavior. Man's religions and philosophies are ephemeral and many, but Man's acquisitive nature is unchanging and primary, and is the driver of our behavior.; 5/28/12, 11:27 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Ken,

Atheism killed hundreds of millions of people the same way religion burned thousands at the stake.

Bullshit. I've looked at those supposedly-atheist societies and they all have some "spiritual not religious" nonsense underpinning them, so stop putting what they wrought on non-believers. Religious people kill "in the name of God" while others do so for a wide variety of reasons, depending on circumstance, but mostly for the power to exert control. That's part of why I despise NewAgers over others - almost any reason will do.

When it comes to atheism - which is mostly people trying to do good for it's own sake - there's just no comparison,...; 5/28/12, 11:33 AM
traditionalguy said...: Message to all accidents of the Universe whose time is brief, God Loves you.; 5/28/12, 11:34 AM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/12, 11:36 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...once homo sapiens developed 200,000 years ago, evolution stopped."

Possibly, but who says so?

Evolution does not occur with observable rapidity, at least in most creatures, and mankind's time on this planet comprises only a minute fraction of the earth's history. Who's to say--if we do not destroy ourselves or are not destroyed by a cataclysmic event--that we won't, in a million years or 20, be significantly different creatures than we are today?

And, why is it that indigenous humans of the far north--the Eskimos--tend to be squat and thick, (allowing for slower dissipation of body heat), while the Watusi, for instance, in torrid Africa, are tall and spindly, (allowing for swifter dissipation of body heat)? Would this not be an instance of evolution in humans, the adaptation of the creature to his environment? This does not mean he would necessarily become a different creature, but merely display acquired physical attributes suited for his surroundings. I'm not making an assertion, but making a suggestion and asking a question.

Alternatively, I heard one opinion espoused that because mankind adapts nature to himself--through our tool-making and creative faculties--that evolution--our continued adaptation to our changing environment--is no longer necessary.; 5/28/12, 11:39 AM
Cedarford said...: Bender - "Even the anti-evolutionists are sophisticated enough to not have any real objection to Leakey's main point here about RACISM."

Actually, the sophisticated scientific thought is now delicately moving away from the "We are all Africans", and "race and other differences are entirely superficial social constructs" theories Leaky and others started pushing in the early 70s to combat RACISM!!

Delicately because DNA studies show various human populations are different at a genetic level, there are admixtures of more ancient peoples in the Out of Africa populations. That mutations of a significant nature happened 35,000 years ago and 8,000 years ago in Central Asia, then the Middle East.

We have compensated for the 60s belief that the only racial differences and subpopulation differences arose from "discrimination and lack of opportunity" - only to see that aside from outliers - you will not see Asians or whites beat Congoloids as medalling Olympic sprinters or E Africans as long distance runners. Or see Africans as competive equals in math, sciences, law...without affirmative action.

Besides human genome research showing differences down to a cellular level - we have research on brain function showing significant differences to various problem-solving between peoples.

We have studies of infants showing by and large, 100 East Asian infants are more passive but more curious and with higher spatial perception skills than black Africans and less aggressive as infants than blacks. White infants lag black infants in aggression and development of motor skills like Asians..while white infants show superior creativity to Asians and Africans.; 5/28/12, 11:44 AM
Fr. Denis Lemieux said...: @Ann Althouse - the reason the poll question is flawed (from a Catholic point of view) is that we have no problem, and never have, with the theory of evolution, but would insist (on theological, not scientific grounds) that God at some point intervened to create the specifically human person (body-soul, made in God's image and likeness, destined for eternal life with God)by an act of special creation.
Our Catholic theology around this question is nuanced and complex - that's the best short version of it I can give. Anyhow, good post, and my only quibble here is the second poll.; 5/28/12, 11:48 AM
damikesc said...: Bullshit. I've looked at those supposedly-atheist societies and they all have some "spiritual not religious" nonsense underpinning them, so stop putting what they wrought on non-believers.

The "spiritual, not religious" nonsense under Stalin was...?

Or Kruschev?

Or any of the Soviet dictators?

Or under Mao?

How about Pol Pot?

You have a lot of faith that atheism itself is a good when history does not reflect that.; 5/28/12, 11:50 AM
Cedarford said...: Robert Cook said...
"Atheism killed more than 100 million people last century. I don't see that being an improvement."

===================
Strong atheist movements arose in an industrial age where access to mass production of weaponry and supplies existed by rail, machine guns, bombers, nukes, almost instant communication by wire of who in X town or X region opposed the regime and were flagged with being subdued, imprisoned, or eliminated.

Imagine if the Jihadis of the 800s had the same tools as Mao had. Or both sides of the religious wars over reformation. Or the Conquistadors. Or followers of Kali in India.

The only difference between the 19th/20th Century "non-religious carnage" and the religious carnage of the past is better and more lethal tools and a more powerful civilization able to sustain total war for years.; 5/28/12, 11:54 AM
Cedarford said...: In fairness to Cookie, he did not say that, he was actually objecting to a poster that claimed that. That atheism was more lethal than bloodthirsty ancient religious warfare.

I side with Cookie on this. Imagine the Killers of Allah had had mass production of weapons, superb logistics, communications, conquered and True believer areas that produced the goods to sustain Jihadis in the field wiping out the pagans and infidels with machine guns and high explosives and nukes ....vs horses and swords and arrows.

My apologies to Cookie for pasting the lead to his post, which made it look like "Robert Cook said".

And don't just beat up on the Islamoids. Imagine counter-Reformation Spain with access to bomber planes and large stocks of nerve gas.; 5/28/12, 12:03 PM
roesch/voltaire said...: I like professor John F. Hught's thoughts expressed in his 2004 Boyle Lecture where he states: In my view, the fact that
the universe possesses a narrative character made possible by its inherent openness to the future
is the greatest of wonders. It is a wonder that we generally take for granted, but it runs much
deeper into nature than does design. The theme of “nature as promise” harmonizes nicely with
the eschatological orientation of biblical religion."; 5/28/12, 12:10 PM
Bender said...: Concerning the main question here -

What is necessary to overcome disharmony among the people of the world?

What Leakey is saying is what "believers" say as well. What is necessary is conversion and transformation, we need a new heart that desires unity and harmony, we also need a new tongue, a new "language" and ability to communicate, so that all the diverse peoples might understand one another and be of one mind.; 5/28/12, 12:13 PM
Paco Wové said...: "Try not to victimize anything else without a good reason. Show your humility (you are neither better nor worse than other beings, predatorial or not) and good will while you are here."

Why?; 5/28/12, 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: R-V: I like professor John F. Hught's thoughts expressed in his 2004 Boyle Lecture where he states:

Devoid of any meaning, yet sparkling in its banality.; 5/28/12, 12:19 PM
Paddy O said...: The theme of “nature as promise” harmonizes nicely with
the eschatological orientation of biblical religion.

If by harmonizes he means "means pretty much the exact opposite" then yes.

Biblical religion states that nature itself does not have promise, but that the Creator must intervene to restore that which is, now, inherently headed towards destruction.; 5/28/12, 12:25 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: If option three is true, all leftist political theories, including liberalism, become logically impossible to defend.

Why? Because the driving force of secular evolution is natural selection, i.e."the survival of the fittest". And "justice" becomes nothing but the "will of the stronger."

One way or another the unalterable laws of evolution will not allow the weak or infirm to become a drag on the stronger.; 5/28/12, 12:28 PM
Fen said...: My view: A unified acceptance of (or belief in) evolution and atheism would stop humans from acting in the name of their God, a cause of much of the disharmony in the world, and inspire the search for real "solutions to global challenges".

Here's why you are wrong: Humans have a spiritual appetite that must be satiated. Even the most devout athiest worships something, be it some cause (AGW) or some person (Obama).

Better that humans worhsip a God in heaven than a God on earth.; 5/28/12, 12:29 PM
Fen said...: I seriously doubt thousands were burned at the stake. Maybe some amateur historian could set the record straight.

1.3 million burned at stake. Didn't you get the Lancet study? ;)

It was "scientific" too....; 5/28/12, 12:33 PM
Bender said...: Biblical religion states that nature itself does not have promise, but that the Creator must intervene to restore that which is, now, inherently headed towards destruction.

Nature itself (not including mankind) is true to itself. It is headed towards destruction because it is designed and made to end at some point - that is exactly what is promised. God does not intend this existing reality, this existing universe, to exist forever. The inherent nature of the present reality is temporary and we human beings are mere sojourners, mere travelers.

The next eschatological reality is not a restoration of the existing reality, but is a new reality altogether, it is a "New Jerusalem," not merely a perpetuation of the one we have now. It is not nature itself which is in need of restoration, but rather, what is in need of restoration is the true nature of the human person, made to love and be loved in truth.; 5/28/12, 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Bender: Even the anti-evolutionists are sophisticated enough to not have any real objection to Leakey's main point here about RACISM.

If you mean politically sophisticated, rather than scientifically sophisticated, yes. And if by RACISM, you mean "racism", yes. Leakey doesn't have a point about race or racism here. He's just vaporing.; 5/28/12, 12:35 PM
damikesc said...: Strong atheist movements arose in an industrial age where access to mass production of weaponry and supplies existed by rail, machine guns, bombers, nukes, almost instant communication by wire of who in X town or X region opposed the regime and were flagged with being subdued, imprisoned, or eliminated.

And if the atheists had the surveillance potential of today, how many more would they have killed?

Hypotheticals tend to be a little useless. What was done is what matters.

If somebody wishes to proclaim that atheism would, somehow, be an improvement over religion as a core governing principle of human society, some evidence of that would seem to be a solid plan.

I side with Cookie on this. Imagine the Killers of Allah had had mass production of weapons, superb logistics, communications, conquered and True believer areas that produced the goods to sustain Jihadis in the field wiping out the pagans and infidels with machine guns and high explosives and nukes ....vs horses and swords and arrows.

...and if the people who they were trying to wipe out were also armed?

Atheistic societies have a tendency towards having a population that is not permitted to be armed. At least historically they have.

As Fen pointed out, mankind ALWAYS wants some spiritual sustenance. Those that choose to abhor religion are simply going to replace that with something else in their lives.; 5/28/12, 12:53 PM
n.n said...: The second question is incomplete. Both God as creator and evolution as as a description of origin are articles of faith embraced by two competing religions. The latter is constructed from observing a pattern described by a permanent set of limited, circumstantial evidence. The latter, in particular, serves to degrade scientific integrity as it claims knowledge through inference from an unconstrained frame of reference. While evolutionary principles can be observed, reproduced and tested, especially in simple organisms with short and extremely short life cycles, evolution as a description of origin is a philosophical construct, which is neither testable nor reproducible.

I suppose everyone wants answers to fundamental questions when no answers are forthcoming. This is where philosophy or faith plays a role in human consciousness. We would do well to distinguish between philosophy or faith, and science. The long running and periodic competition between these competing religions has not served to improve humanity's condition. The principles engendered by the latter are diverse, inconsistent, and often incompatible with both the natural (i.e. evolutionary fitness) and enlightened (i.e. consciousness or individual dignity) orders, especially when dreams of instant gratification (i.e. physical, material, and ego) contribute to a progressive dysfunction of individuals, society, and humanity.; 5/28/12, 12:54 PM
Fen said...: A quick google of Richard Leakey reveals him to be a Gaia worshiper who promotes population "control"

I stand by my earlier remark: Even the most devout athiest worships something, be it some cause (AGW) or some person (Obama).

Richard Leakey simply wants to replace your Religion with his own.

[waves to Screwtape] nice try; 5/28/12, 12:58 PM
Quaestor said...: traditionalguy wrote:
If you still think that was an accident, then you are profoundly ignorant.

Yep, that's me. Profoundly ignorant, and proud of it. I go through life unashamedly acknowledging I haven't a clue about the ultimate origins of life, the universe and everything (though I'm pretty sure it's not 42). Then there are those who are cocksure about something they call a creator, or an intelligent designer, or -- what's the latest fashionable moniker -- an encoder! Wow! And all without an atom of evidence. I am in awe of your awesomeness.; 5/28/12, 1:06 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...the driving force of secular evolution is natural selection, i.e.'the survival of the fittest'. And 'justice' becomes nothing but the 'will of the stronger.'

"One way or another the unalterable laws of evolution will not allow the weak or infirm to become a drag on the stronger."

I'll reiterate my first comment from above: the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any post-Darwin ideologies of "survival of he strongest."

Also, in "liberal" societies, justice is the will of the many," tempered by rule of law to mitigate lynch mob rule.; 5/28/12, 1:07 PM
Robert Cook said...: Um,or of "survival of the fittest."; 5/28/12, 1:13 PM
Fen said...: Also, in "liberal" societies, justice is the will of the many,"

Uh no. Thats not what Justice is.

No wonder you are so fucked up.; 5/28/12, 1:14 PM
Pastafarian said...: I'd like to change my vote from 1a to 1b.

We'll overcome all disharmony among peoples of the world once everyone accepts Allah as the one true god, and Mohammed as his prophet.

Now, if you're suggesting that we could all worship different gods, and disharmony would evaporate -- yeah, that sounds like hippy talk to me. Apparently 85% of Althouse's readers are pot-smoking Jesus-Christ-Superstar-watching sandal-wearing why-can't-we-all-get-along goddamn dirty hippies.

Put down the bong, people.

I think Ricpic at 9:56 and Fen at 12:29 make great points. Strife and religiosity are natural parts of the human condition and try as we might to rid ourselves of them, like nose hair and underarm perspiration, the best we could ever hope to do is minimize their negative consequences.

And no, Cookie, socialism isn't the answer; unless the question is "what's the most unnatural and demotivating economic system we could come up that will lead inevitably to mass starvation?"; 5/28/12, 1:16 PM
Pastafarian said...: Oops -- typo -- I meant "from 1b, to 1a" in the above typed scribbling.; 5/28/12, 1:24 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Uh no. Thats** not what Justice is."

**("the will of the many...tempered by rule of law, etc.")

Well, then...what is justice?

Don't immediately disqualify your answer by referring to some force or being outside of humanity.; 5/28/12, 1:26 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Apparently 85% of Althouse's readers are pot-smoking Jesus-Christ-Superstar-watching sandal-wearing why-can't-we-all-get-along goddamn dirty hippies."

Heh. I perceive 85% of the commenters here to be Ayn Rand-readin', flag-lovin', gun-totin', America: Love-it-or-Leave It jingoists.; 5/28/12, 1:30 PM
Bender said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/12, 1:34 PM
Bender said...: justice is the will of the many

Based on what I've read on this blog for the last couple of years, "the many" people who comment here routinely reject what Cook has to say. As a matter of his definition of justice, then, we should conclude from that alone that he is wrong about what justice is.; 5/28/12, 1:35 PM
traditionalguy said...: Quaestor...Consider the creative right side of the brain coming up with solution connection in a flash and it answers the questions. What is that? How does Bob Dylan write lyrics for Like A Rolling Stone from a force that comes upon him?

If there can be no personal speaking spirit we call God as an explanation for those epiphanies, then how do we explain such experiences? The answer is not "refusing to go there" because the left side of your brain doesn't like competition.; 5/28/12, 1:40 PM
Robert Cook said...: Based on what I've read on this blog for the last couple of years, 'the many' people who comment here routinely reject what Cook has to say. As a matter of his definition of justice, then, we should conclude from that alone that he is wrong about what justice is."

Neat...you didn't provide your own definition of what justice might be.

And...who said "justice" is always just?

It is merely...the will of the people, hopefully tempered by the moderating influence of law. In these latter days, it has become more and more simply the expression of fear and of the people's atavistic desires for revenge.; 5/28/12, 1:41 PM
Quaestor said...: Fen wrote:
Even the most devout athiest worships something, be it some cause (AGW) or some person (Obama).

Bullshit.

Point one) Atheists aren't devout, because they have no belief to be devoted to. Atheists have practical beliefs, like "I believe the earth is solid under my feet, because it has always been solid, and I see no evidence of change in its status." We aren't total skeptics, we trust that our senses give us a generally reliable impression of the universe outside our own minds -- for example that cross-town bus approaching us is much more likely to be real than an illusion, therefore we don't step blithely into traffic -- so you could call that a faith of sorts. But it's no kind of religion.

Point two) What kind of foolish arrogance does it take to assume that just because your brain is wired for the god experience that everyone else is required to share your delusional proclivities?

I don't believe there's a ghost in the machine. My lawnmower works because of human engineering and craftsmanship within a context of known physical laws which produce predictable outputs from consistent inputs. I don't feel the need to propitiate any invisible spirit or otherworldly force to get it going. The only propitiation I do is at the gas pump, where I sacrifice bits of ceremonial paper to a great and powerful entity called British Petroleum. You may feel the need to shout hallelujah or slaughter your first born male child when your lawnmower starts, that may only be your primitive brain chemistry at work. Go ahead, knock yourself out, just don't insist I secretly long to join you, or that I just worship other gods because I don't. You have NO KNOWLEDGE of my mind, what I know, and what I believe. And why I am I certain of this, you ask? Because it is a metaphysical absurdity to believe otherwise. How can you KNOW what I THINK?

Point three) Assuming Richard Leakey does worship an entity called Gaia, what business is it of yours, and what makes your imaginary sky monster any better than his?; 5/28/12, 1:48 PM
Kirk Parker said...: phx/Quayle:

"The problem isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but rather it has been found difficult and not tried."

-Chesterton (paraphrased--I'm way too lazy on this holiday to spend time looking it up.)

Robert Cook,

I'd be very cautious making assertions (er, I mean, suggestions) based on body type: there are equally-hot portions of Africa populated by groups of average height, and then there are the Bushman pygmies...; 5/28/12, 1:52 PM
test said...: Where's the option "It makes no fucking difference whatever"?; 5/28/12, 2:00 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: People are going to attach some moral significance to the fact that they're all from Africa without any underlying reason for the truth of moral categories?

I doubt it.

Are the biggest divisions among human beings racial? How does "We all originate from Africa" solve religious or political differences? How does "We all originate from Africa" help to engender practice of the golden rule?; 5/28/12, 2:25 PM
Quaestor said...: traditionalguy wroet:
Consider the creative right side of the brain coming up with solution connection in a flash and it answers the questions. What is that? How does Bob Dylan write lyrics for Like A Rolling Stone from a force that comes upon him?

I have no idea what you're talking about? Are you an authority on Bob Dylan's mind? If so you are indeed possessed of awesome awesomeness. I'm not an authority on even my own mind, let alone the mind of someone I've never met. However, based on limited evidence I surmise that Bob Dylan's creativeness is similar to mine, i.e. it is at least a partly unconscious process that derives entirely from memories, experiences, fantasies and objective knowledge that my brain has cataloged and indexed over the ten and a half thousand days of my lifetime. Evidence indicates that my brain has the ability to assemble brand new ideas from the components of my experience. For example: Achilles moved in next door to me last night. He arrived in a van pulled by two tyrannosaurs called Bob. Why they shared the name I don't know. I assume it was a coincidence. It must have been confusing to those big lizard-birds when Achilles shouted "I'm going to kill Bob in revenge for his torment of Hitler's grandmother down at the softball game last weekend," but they didn't show it. I asked Achilles if he would be celebrating Memorial Day at the other other brat-fest in downtown Madison, but he said he'd rather forget Troy. Easy -- a completely original paragraph, nothing exactly like it since the Big Bang. No god or devil required. Even a mindless machine can do this with the right programming and the right data.; 5/28/12, 2:30 PM
bagoh20 said...: "I don't believe there's a ghost in the machine. My lawnmower works because of human engineering and craftsmanship within a context of known physical laws which produce predictable outputs from consistent inputs..."

But what if you found a lawn mower on the moon? Would you assume it just appeared by natural forces, because you knew of no other scientific explanation?

The universe is so much more complex and systematic than a lawn mower, and yet you assume that explanation for it's engineering.

I think any explanation requires some faith in something that can't be proven, including atheism. In either case people go forward on that faith. As an agnostic, I don't really care which it is, but I wish we could stop attacking each other over what we can't possibly know. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to choose a faith that you think will guide you to behave well, and go with that. Just don't try to tell me you know the truth, because that is one question I know nobody is qualified to answer.; 5/28/12, 2:37 PM
bagoh20 said...: " How does Bob Dylan write lyrics for Like A Rolling Stone from a force that comes upon him?"

He imagined: What will get people I know to think I'm really cool, and get me some chicks with this messed up hair and voice. Tada: "Like a Rolling Stone". Pretty simple explanation really. I bet if you ask him and he was honest, that's it.; 5/28/12, 2:41 PM
Quaestor said...: But what if you found a lawn mower on the moon? Would you assume it just appeared by natural forces, because you knew of no other scientific explanation?

Absent any other evidence I'd adopt as a working hypothesis the lawnmower got to the moon the same way I did.; 5/28/12, 2:41 PM
Jose_K said...: Each time i heard the expession afro american o afrovenezuelan ,I say the same: We are all africans; 5/28/12, 2:45 PM
jungatheart said...: I like professor John F. Hught's thoughts expressed in his 2004 Boyle Lecture where he states: In my view, the fact that
the universe possesses a narrative character made possible by its inherent openness to the future
is the greatest of wonders. It is a wonder that we generally take for granted, but it runs much
deeper into nature than does design. The theme of “nature as promise”...

By what reasoning do you conclude that the narrative nature of the universe runs deeper than its design?; 5/28/12, 2:51 PM
jungatheart said...: I think justice is the will of the people, in the form of traditions and customs. The moderating influence of the courts allows us to discuss the direction we take going forward.; 5/28/12, 2:54 PM
Quaestor said...: We are all africans

Hey! Don't dump me into your anthro-fascist blending machine! Help! Help! I'm being repressed. Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

I'm a proud afro-neanderthal, and I've got the membership card to prove it.; 5/28/12, 2:54 PM
Jose_K said...: The second poll is flawed. As a Roman Catholic, and in accordance with Catholic theology:
The oficcial comment of the Bible by the Catholic Church :

3 [5] In ancient Israel a day was considered to begin at sunset. According to the highly artificial literary structure of ⇒ Genesis 1:1-⇒ 2:4a, God's creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness of the sabbath rest on the seventh day in the Israelite religion (⇒ Genesis 2:2-3).

4 [26] Man is here presented as the climax of God's creative activity; he resembles God primarily because of the dominion God gives him over the rest of creation.

In the spanish edition the cretion is called a poetic anthopomorphic fable
BTW: The Big Bang Theoy was worked by a catholich priest.; 5/28/12, 2:56 PM
bagoh20 said...: "By what reasoning do you conclude that the narrative nature of the universe runs deeper than its design?"

I'm no philosopher, but I think the idea is that if you find a book, and it has a plot, you assume an author came before it.

The questions are:
What's the plot?
Am I the protagonist?
Am I still around at the end?
Is there a sequel?; 5/28/12, 2:57 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Absent any other evidence I'd adopt as a working hypothesis the lawnmower got to the moon the same way I did."

Ahh, but you don't know how you got there either. And even stranger, where is the leaf blower?; 5/28/12, 3:03 PM
Paco Wové said...: My view: A unified acceptance of (or belief in) evolution and atheism would stop humans from acting in the name of their God, a cause of much of the disharmony in the world, and inspire the search for real "solutions to global challenges".

My view: First off, the likelihood of "a unified acceptance of evolution and atheism" is very close to zero, about as likely as a flying spaghetti monster.
Secondly, it's not like people haven't tried pushing the whole universal-peace-'n'-brotherhood thing already. It never seems to get very far.; 5/28/12, 3:04 PM
Quaestor said...: deborah wrote:
I think justice is the will of the people, in the form of traditions and customs.

I disagree. If justice is anything it must be distinct from the popular will. I imagine the gravest injustices are done in compliance with the "will of the people". A action can be unjust even if everyone in the world agrees to it. I agree with Plato on the matter of justice in that justice derives from our innate ability to conceive of equality. There may be no two pebbles in the universe that are exact equals, yet two identical stones are within our conceptual grasp.; 5/28/12, 3:04 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: A unified acceptance of (or belief in) evolution and atheism would stop humans from acting in the name of their God, a cause of much of the disharmony in the world,

So you would also do away with much of the harmony in the world? Or do you not think religion is the cause of any of that?

You'll also have to forgive my lacking the imagination to see how the universal adoption of a worldview under which everything is ultimately permitted will lead to harmonious society. Is the idea that without belief in God all people will shed their baser instincts? (I'll grant use of the word "baser" in this context where it would actually be meaningless.); 5/28/12, 3:16 PM
Amartel said...: I think it's just in us to fight and also I think far too much is made of racial disharmony. Africans, Europeans, and Asians were beating, enslaving, and killing each other in isolation long before encountering each other. The American Indians at Plymouth welcomed the Europeans (eventually) because it seemed like they (their guns) might be helpful beating the shit out of the next tribe over. The people on Easter Island exterminated themselves, completely in isolation from any other race. I'd probably go with "God" as opposed to "no God" for most likely to sort out disharmony. True, with "God" we fight over which God is legit, but if everyone had their own God (no God, your on your own) the fighting would be constant.; 5/28/12, 3:54 PM
jungatheart said...: "I'm no philosopher, but I think the idea is that if you find a book, and it has a plot, you assume an author came before it."

That's the direction I'm going bago, but I was thinking more yin and yang, can't have one without the other.; 5/28/12, 4:04 PM
jungatheart said...: "A action can be unjust even if everyone in the world agrees to it."

That's what I meant by the moderating influence of the courts. Sticky issues like abortion require a consideration of whose rights prevail. I should have included RC's original thought:

"Also, in "liberal" societies, justice is the will of the many," tempered by rule of law to mitigate lynch mob rule."

Anyway, I mean that our laws and traditions yield what we consider justice.; 5/28/12, 4:15 PM
Kevin said...: Racial distinctions may be meaningless, but cultural distinctions are not, and there is more than enough going on there to keep hatred and conflict going for a long, long, long time.; 5/28/12, 4:17 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: damikesc,

The "spiritual, not religious" nonsense under Stalin was…?

  You're pointing out leaders - not societies. There's as much NewAge nonsense going on in Russia/the Soviet Union as anywhere. They are not and never have been an atheist society.

You have a lot of faith that atheism itself is a good when history does not reflect that.

Historians don't always know what they're looking at. A lot of religious scholars don't know what they're looking at. Journalists definitely don't have a clue what they're looking at:

Richard Dawkins is an agnostic but he's widely known as the "atheist bulldog."

I regularly see NewAgers being lumped with atheists in religious polls, because lightweight intellectuals think "no religious affiliation" means no belief in God, when it actually indicates "spiritual but not religious" or NewAge. (And I suspect this is said and done intentionally, by some, to cover up NewAge's true numbers and influence.)

Many of the "atheist" scientists I've encountered online have a NewAge background and, still, adhere to many of it's tenets - which is why they're so into Gaia science and the like, even though the evidence is against them.

I'd say you, too, damikesc, don't know what you're looking at - which is the only way you can come to the conclusion you do. You're just accepting what you've been told without any further study and using that thin veneer of misinformation to smear the most persecuted group on Earth.

Not what's needed or called for, dude.

Honestly, one of the only atheists most people have ever heard of, and recognized as such, was Christopher Hitchens.

Considering that's so, you're lucky to know me,...; 5/28/12, 4:54 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Freeman Hunt,

You'll also have to forgive my lacking the imagination to see how the universal adoption of a worldview under which everything is ultimately permitted will lead to harmonious society.

Um, I didn't see that even implied in what you quoted, and it's definitely not a plank of atheism, so maybe I missed it - what are you reacting to?

It sounds like that darned let's all dance around the golden calf NewAge/Paganism again,...; 5/28/12, 5:00 PM
wyo sis said...: The book's author cannot also be the book, or the words. The author is separate. If I correctly understand bogoh20 we cannot make the book into the author. In other words God is not the same as His creations.
His creations can be very much like Him and He may very well want them to be even more like Him because He knows some things His creations don't know. In that way I believe in evolution. Human beings can evolve into even greater 'creatures," to use C S Lewis' term.
I don't believe that everything evolved from a single accident of molecules coming together and somehow sparking life. That is much less likely to my mind than that there is a creator.; 5/28/12, 5:36 PM
SukieTawdry said...: I have read that working through the human genome, "they" have been able to trace European ancestry to eight females scattered about the continent. They fully expect to eventually trace the entire human race to one female in Africa, the mother of all mankind. Imagine that. I guess, though, it's already been "imagined" in some quarters. I understand in those quarters they call this female "Eve."; 5/28/12, 5:51 PM
Cedarford said...: Kevin said...
Racial distinctions may be meaningless, but cultural distinctions are not, and there is more than enough going on there to keep hatred and conflict going for a long, long, long time.

-----------------
They are not "meaningless". Notable differences go right to the DNA level. Certain doses of hypertension medication for Asian men would kill many black men. You can identify races by skulls and bones.
If you subscribe to the idea that race and ethnicity are "meaningless social constructs" then you see all disparate levels of accomplishment as signs of discrimination or cultural problems that prevent Eskimos from having their fair share of Olympic sprinters, blacks at Harvard Law, or whites in the NBA.; 5/28/12, 6:03 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/12, 6:40 PM
Q said...: I didn't think Leakey meant his statement to be backward-looking, but rather that, given our common origin, racial distinctions are arbitrary and pointless.

Scientifically speaking, the proposition that "given our common origin, racial distinctions are arbitrary and pointless" is rather silly.

You might just as well ague that "given our common origin, species distinctions between humans and apes are arbitrary and pointless". Some people do argue this, and you have to give them credit for logical consistency if nothing else.

If we take the theory of evolution seriously we should at least be open to the possibility that different groups of people are different. That's the outcome we would expect to find if natural selection were at work.; 5/28/12, 6:56 PM
Rabel said...: What an unpleasant thread.

God - Evolution - whichever.

Sometimes it comes together really well.

Like this:

Thank You Jesus (or Mother Nature); 5/28/12, 7:13 PM
jvermeer51 said...: The Declaration of Independence gives a framework for government and society: Creator endowed rights with government existing to secure these right. It is less important whether you believe in a creator than that embrace the framework as if a creator exists.; 5/28/12, 7:58 PM
wyo sis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/12, 8:24 PM
JAL said...: God exists. He created it all.

How? I really do not know.

The choices don't touch on some of the other possibilities.

I will comment that one of the the biggest problems I see with evolution is that there isn't enough time to account for it all that way. Mutation here, mutation there, survival of the most fit here, there, reproduce reproduce, die, die ... And I am supposed to believe it was all happening all at once all over to everything.

Straight evolution (out of nothing, nobody, no where) is too big a leap of faith for me.

Creation is incredibly, incredibly complex.; 5/28/12, 9:10 PM
KCFleming said...: For such a smart guy, Richard Leakey was a real dope.

Geez, people in ate same family can't even agree on what to watch on the teevee or what to have for dinner. And they share just a few immediate ancestors, some even still come for dinner.

What makes him think that the world will suddenly agree on things just because they share some great great great great great x 10 to the 24th power grandpa?

Whatta maroon. Whatta nincowpoop.; 5/28/12, 9:40 PM
KCFleming said...: The sudden realization that we are all related will only result in an increase in requests to borrow money.; 5/28/12, 9:41 PM
Fen said...: Fen wrote: Even the most devout athiest worships something, be it some cause (AGW) or some person (Obama).

Quaestor: Bullshit. Atheists aren't devout, because they have no belief to be devoted to. Atheists have practical beliefs, like "I believe the earth is solid under my feet, because it has always been solid, and I see no evidence of change in its status."

Then explain why Richard Leakey has so much FAITH in Anthropogenic Global Warming....; 5/28/12, 9:43 PM
Fen said...: oh, I skipped your points 2 & 3 because they are such unfounded assumptions.

Your emotional reaction to my point only reinforces it. You've responded as if I committed blasphemy against your non-religious religion...; 5/28/12, 9:45 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Fen,

Even the most devout athiest worships something, be it some cause (AGW) or some person (Obama).

Man, I hate having to repeat myself, when I assume you guys can be smart:

Environmentalism and Obama are NewAge obsessions. That's why I've been calling Obama our NewAge president all these years.

Then explain why Richard Leakey has so much FAITH in Anthropogenic Global Warming....

I give up,...; 5/28/12, 10:01 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: JAL,

God exists. He created it all.

How? I really do not know.

Sigh. You guys really are hopeless. You might want to read this, because it's exactly what you sound like, and what you're going through,...; 5/28/12, 10:06 PM
Methadras said...: It's the idea that God created all things. ALL THINGS!!! and it is our job to discover all of those things and use them to our advantage. That is the gift of life bestowed upon all creation.; 5/28/12, 10:11 PM
wyo sis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/12, 10:49 PM
wyo sis said...: Some things you just take on faith. Some things you take with proof.
You can perform a sort of scientific experiment to see for yourself if God is real. Just ask Him and listen for the answer. I know, it sounds lame, but consider the scientific method. If you want to know you start with a thesis then you experiment.
Start with the thesis that there is a God and He want's you to know about Him. Then ask Him if He's real. Don't depend on what other people say. Ask for yourself and ask sincerely. Then when you get an answer listen. What have you got to lose?; 5/28/12, 10:51 PM
rcommal said...: The most awesome phrase in this thread is "for the forceable future," and that's so even though it was obviously just a blooper.; 5/28/12, 11:51 PM
Fen said...: Fen: "Even the most devout athiest worships something, be it some cause (AGW) or some person (Obama)."

Crack: Man, I hate having to repeat myself, when I assume you guys can be smart: Environmentalism and Obama are NewAge obsessions.

Please stop appropriating my comments to pimp your blog. Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

Fen: "explain why Richard Leakey has so much FAITH in Anthropogenic Global Warming...."

Crack: I give up,...

Of course you do. You want to deny that athiests like yourself do not displace their spiritual needs into cultish causes like AGW, as Richard Leakey has done.

You want to deny it, and you can't.

Have some shame. Or at least lay off the "I'm so smarter than you guys" bullshit for 15 mins.; 5/29/12, 12:16 AM
Gene said...: "Life is extraordinary in its long creation and all encoded by an encoder."

That's the problem. Garbage in. Garbage out.; 5/29/12, 1:20 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...one of the the biggest problems I see with evolution is that there isn't enough time to account for it all that way. Mutation here, mutation there, survival of the most fit here, there, reproduce reproduce, die, die ... And I am supposed to believe it was all happening all at once all over to everything.

"Straight evolution (out of nothing, nobody, no where) is too big a leap of faith for me.

"Creation is incredibly, incredibly complex."

And yet, you have no qualms accepting the idea that a pre-existing, infinite and infinitely powerful intelligent entity--God--simply breathed (or snapped his fingers or made gang gestures or whispered "Hocus Pocus!") and the universe existed where before there had been only...God.

How is your thesis any less incredible? In fact, how is it, in essence, any different than the idea that the universe came into existence from a "Big Bang" and that the stars and planets and all other celestial bodies and phenomena formed over many millions of years, followed by, at least on this planet but probably on many throughout the universe, the development of complex life from simple chemical reactions?; 5/29/12, 5:54 AM
damikesc said...: You're pointing out leaders - not societies. There's as much NewAge nonsense going on in Russia/the Soviet Union as anywhere. They are not and never have been an atheist society.

There is no evidence of spirituality of "New Age" nonsense under the Soviets. It was a rather dour, quite atheistic, society. The Church was effectively smashed and replaced with the state.

I don't like the Crusades --- doesn't mean Christianity was not a significant part of the atrocity.

I'd say you, too, damikesc, don't know what you're looking at - which is the only way you can come to the conclusion you do. You're just accepting what you've been told without any further study and using that thin veneer of misinformation to smear the most persecuted group on Earth.

Crack, I'm no smearing them than I've heard others smear the religious. There are countless "bad apples" in any group and to assume that atheists will be any measure better than the religious is to ignore simple human nature. People aren't nice and lovely naturally.

Atheists have the same base desires as those that believe in a Supreme Being and the same propensity to delude themselves into believing that what they are doing is the "right" thing and that thosr who oppose them are wrong/evil/whatever.

Every person wants some "spiritual" fulfillment. It varies person to person. Everybody has something that they believe in that defies logic. My faith is my religion and I can acknowledge, with no qualms, that I cannot prove it. The requirement of faith is enough for me. Your faith (for wont of a better term) is something different. Not better, not worse, just different.

Considering that's so, you're lucky to know me,...

Truth be known, I do not disagree. I may not agree with all you say, but I do appreciate your ability to explain where you're coming from better than most.

Sigh. You guys really are hopeless. You might want to read this, because it's exactly what you sound like, and what you're going through,...

Charlatans exist. Jesus said it is not our place to know God's plan and we will not know what is planned until it happened. Some people try to divine information where, legitimately, none is given. I've heard the sermon, regularly, for a while now --- "When will the world end? We do not know. Anybody who says he does know is either a fool or a fraud".

Heck, I have to live with the realization that when Jesus returns, odds are, only a tiny fraction of those who claim to follow Him as their Savior will even recognize Him in the first place. Many of my faith are not truly faithful. Not a happy realization, but it is a simple bit of reality.; 5/29/12, 7:30 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: who sis,

Start with the thesis that there is a God and He want's you to know about Him. Then ask Him if He's real. Don't depend on what other people say. Ask for yourself and ask sincerely. Then when you get an answer listen. What have you got to lose?

Your mind.

It's amazing you don't see that's crazy talk. Asking invisible beings to talk to you, and then spending the rest of your life listening for Him to talk back. I've got news for you:

If He does, you're bonkers,...; 5/29/12, 7:44 AM
KCFleming said...: Crack, one could well argue that you're using the ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy to argue that the communist regimes were not atheistic.; 5/29/12, 8:13 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: I'm with Hamilton Felix from Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon".

Those that use science to deny religion or spiritual matters are whistling past the graveyard: science, as a discipline, currently deliberately avoids addressing spiritual issues at all.

Personally, I think that is because when science developed as a discipline during the enlightenment, the measuring tools were way too crude to investigate soul, sentience, etc.

But science is moving closer to investigating the nature of personhood. I predict that when that becomes a topic of investigation, a bunch of people are going to be surprised.; 5/29/12, 8:27 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Crack, one could well argue that you're using the ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy to argue that the communist regimes were not atheistic."

The question is not whether the communist regimes were officially atheistic--they were, no doubt. However, that the party and state was officially atheist does not mean the populace en masse renounced their religious beliefs, whatever they may have been.

More pertinent, despite claims made here, it has not been demonstrated that murderous brutality of the communist regimes was a product of their officially "atheist" policy.; 5/29/12, 8:31 AM
Dante said...: Nathan:

"Those that use science to deny religion or spiritual matters are whistling past the graveyard: science, as a discipline, currently deliberately avoids addressing spiritual issues at all."

How about a good definition of "spiritual" and some examples of "spiritual issues."; 5/29/12, 9:25 AM
damikesc said...: More pertinent, despite claims made here, it has not been demonstrated that murderous brutality of the communist regimes was a product of their officially "atheist" policy.

Atheistic regimes as diverse as Nazi Germany and Soviet USSR (as long as one assumes that there actually WAS a significant difference in the two, a large assumption to be sure) had the same issue of mass murder orchestrated by the state.; 5/29/12, 10:05 AM
wyo sis said...: Crack
There could be a discussion about what is more bonkers, but I'll leave it to more argumentative people than I am.
If I'm bonkers, at least it's a productive sort of bonkers with a happy family of smart educated people. If there's a price to pay later I'm hoping I can handle it. I'll have a lot of people around me to help. It's the best I can do.; 5/29/12, 10:54 AM
roesch/voltaire said...: Angel, maybe trying reading the passage twice, it is a profound understanding of how the continual potential of nature pushing for more complexity harmonizes with a belief in the creative source of it all. Or maybe try reading the whole lecture to change your blog reading habits.; 5/29/12, 12:33 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Atheistic regimes as diverse as Nazi Germany...."

What gives you the notion that Nazi Germany was officially an atheistic state?

That aside, that still does not demonstrate that their genocidal policies derived from any hypothetical atheism attached to the state apparatus.

There have been murderous tyrannies throughout the world throughout human history, secular and nonsecular. The brutality arises from the unilateral nature of the government--from the top-down rule and from the necessity thereby for absolute subjugation of the populace to the absolute ruler(s).; 5/29/12, 1:32 PM
jungatheart said...: "...it is a profound understanding of how the continual potential of nature pushing for more complexity harmonizes with a belief in the creative source of it all."

Well. When you put it that way :); 5/29/12, 1:52 PM
Robert Cook said...: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/29/the-nyts-love-letter-to-death-squads/

Obama is avowedly a Christian; so how to explain his campaign of murder?; 5/29/12, 2:02 PM
JAL said...: You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

Bob Dylan

Take your pick.; 5/29/12, 8:46 PM

What is actually true (or most likely true)?
	There is a God, and He created human beings in their current form.
	There is a God, and He created the process of evolution that unfolded over the eons.
	Human beings evolved without the participation of any God.

pollcode.com free polls

Althouse

May 28, 2012

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African..."

148 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Blog Archive

What belief is more likely to overcome disharmony among the people of the world?
	God watches over and loves His Creation, humanity.
	Humankind arose from evolution, with no divine plan or supervision at any point.

pollcode.com free polls

Althouse

May 28, 2012

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African..."

148 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Subscribe To Althouse

Blog Archive