Feeding Frenzy

[Strife767]

What about those screaming about "under God" in the pledge?  I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but there are definitely atheists who are shouting about their belief that kids shouldn't have to say "under God", and who are trying to "shove it down the throats" of everyone, are there not?  You can say argue that it is or it isn't a Constitutional issue until you are blue in the face.  At the end of the day, it's typically an atheists belief AND atheists are trying to change the daily behavior of schoolchildren for the past half-century.

Please at least acknowledge that there are at least some atheists who are acting in a manner very similar to the "fundies", lest you prove that atheists can be every bit as hypocritical as the "fundies".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Atheists are not automatically perfect people or anything, but the whole "under God" thing is not shoving anything down anyone's throat--it is a call for the religious neutrality our Constitution is supposed to uphold. That's all. I hate it when someone (atheist or not) says they want to remove some unconstitutional element of theism from a state institution, and all these people take it as some attack on theism, or that they feel that removing an unconstitutional 'chunk' of theism is somehow "promoting atheism" and somehow 'just as bad.' It's ridiculous.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

I guess what I find most infuriating about the far right fundamenlists is thier "My way or the highway" frame of mind. At the same time as they tout Bush as some sort of hero, it seems as if they fail to realize that the "Insurgents" that our troops are fighting are of the exact same mindset,"My way or the Highway. In this case however the "Highway" is just a euphimism for death. How long will it take before the Christian Right resorts to more than just rhetoric? 5yrs, 10,20 maybe less, or maybe more? This is not meant to be a joke. I truly fear that this may be the case in the not to distant future unless we can reach a middle ground. Live and let live.

[Guest 2smart4u]

LOL!

Get with the times, moron. Even most creationists aren't still using this argument, as it has failed miserably long ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

The eye is in no way a hurdle to the theory of evolution. There is indeed an evolutionary explanation for the eye. Science is most certainly NOT "in agreement that the...eye could not have evolved from a sightless organism." And there is ABSOLUTELY nothing resembling any sort of consensus in the scientific community (I can't speak about the willfully ignorant creationist community, though) about it being a "mathematically (sic) impossibility."

Oh, I see--so you realize that the evidence is right there in front of you, but you will

1. Assume that anyone who provides/discovered it is an atheist. Nice strawman.

2. Attack that strawman and use the reverse of the fallacious argument from authority to conclude that all of the evidence is automatically invalid. You do this obviously because you have no real refutation for the actual evidence. Stop being such a wimp and admit it.

And you wonder why people like you are such a laughingstock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a surprise that you quote Darwiniac literature to support the rediculous notion that the eye was the result of the accidential coming together of millions of mathematically impossible alterations in exactly the right sequence without any "intelligence" involved. Only the most extreme of the Daffy Darwiniacs still cling to that Disneyland story. You're obviously one of them and that's fine with me, I'm not here to convert you, only to show you the light.

[Guest Guest]

You nailed it.  Reading this garbage from the anti-God crowd you realize how mean-spirited and angry they are. I think what they're missing is God's love in their lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just can't seem to avoid displaying what an ignorant wanker you are every time you sit at a keyboard.

This is not an anti-God issue. The teacher made the claim that only those who accept Christ can attain heaven. So, the Jews are screwed? All tho poor innocents who trod the earth before the time of Chist are up Sh*t's Creek without a paddle? There'll be no Native Americans in heaven? NOBODY KNOWS for SURE and is entirely wrong for the man to be making those remarks in a public school.

[Guest Guest]

The Daffy Darwiniacs have one major hurdle they can't get over.  There is no evolutionary explanation for the eye. Science is in agreement that the incredibly complicated eye could not have evolved from a sightless organism.  It's a "mathematically impossibility" state all the greatest minds in science.

Care to cite some sources for your claim there, mister 2smart4u? Go on, let the whole world see who these "greatest minds in science" are...

[Guest Guest]

You're one misguided individual. Fundie adding "under God" to the Pledge was their attempt to shove their beliefs down others' throats. If the wording was changed to "under Allah", would you think someone's shoving their belief down your throat? People who resist the 'under God" wording is fighting for their (and hence everyone's) religious freedom. They're not forcing anyone to agree with their atheist belief. All they're saying is: they don't belief in god, this is not a christian country, the government should not force them to acknowledge a god they don't belief it. After all, that is what religious freedom is all about - free to believe or not believe whatever you choose.

The Atheist equivalent of "under God" would be if they somehow managed to add "there is no God" to the Pledge. To my knowledge, that has not happened.

For you to say that the atheists who resist saying "under god" are "shoving" their belief down others throats just show how biased and misguided you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, you are misguided. I do not automatically assume that "under God" cannot mean "under Allah", "under Jesus", "under Mohammad", "under Buddha", "under Abraham" or even "under a Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Further, as I stated in my post, I did not say that I either agree with it or disagree with it. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of stating that the "fundies" are the ones always trying to shove something down our throats. While acknowledging that they do frequently, we must also acknowledge that the pledge, as it currently stands, has been in place for the better part of five decades. Those (and I am not saying it is you, so you can put Mr. Defensive back in the closet) who are trying to change it now are, in a manner, attempting to change behavior to suit their particular beliefs - much like the "fundies" have done.

Again, I am not saying that this is unwarranted or unjust. All I am pointing out is that when you start shouting about the behavior of some in a generalized group, when others who can be generalized into your group are guilty of the same behavior, then what we have here really is nothing more than an argument between a pot and a tea kettle.

I can see the but ... but ... but's ... lining up now.

[Guest On the Fence]

Atheists are not automatically perfect people or anything, but the whole "under God" thing is not shoving anything down anyone's throat--it is a call for the religious neutrality our Constitution is supposed to uphold. That's all. I hate it when someone (atheist or not) says they want to remove some unconstitutional element of theism from a state institution, and all these people take it as some attack on theism, or that they feel that removing an unconstitutional 'chunk' of theism is somehow "promoting atheism" and somehow 'just as bad.' It's ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, let me play devil's advocate.

How does "under God" favor any religion over another? The vast majority of religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) practiced in the United States believe in one God (their "middle men" are different, but the religious among us all seem to believe in one God). As far as I can tell, the phrase "under God" does not sufficiently identify any one of them such that the goverment would be endorsing one religion over the other (as far as I can tell, the Constituion contains no proscription against the mention of God or of religion in general, otherwise, the First Amendment would be un-Constitutional). Hence, unless you can tell me to which God the phrase is referring, I don't see how the phrase is violative of the Establishment Clause.

Now, I acknowledge that "under God" does not represent Atheists. But Atheism is NOT a religion (and, therefore, the phrase cannot be guilty of promoting one religion over another vis-a-vis Atheism). Furthermore, the Constitutional Congress and the Article of Confederation were steeped in religion. With religion beging such a touchy subject, the framers of the Constitution thought better to leave it out of the Constitution (for the most part), mostly to appease the Federalists who felt that religion ought to be a state government, not federal government, matter (and NOT because our forefathers were anti-religion). As a compromise, our forefathers added the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the framers contemplated that religion shall be exercised by the masses. Moreover, according to Alexis de Tocqueville's observations of America's early days, "religion is indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions." So, before I degenerate into an "original intent" argument, how is the phrase "under God" violative of the Constitution or the intent of the framers?

That being said, I hate the history of the phrase and the reasons for putting the phrase into place.

[Guest Religious Non-Christian]

While this post is hardly the most strident I've seen, and I much appreciate its tone, it may just take the prize for the most illogical. Boiled down to its essence, it says that atheists are trying to force freedom on everyone.

Atheists object to "under God" in the pledge because it is a coerced recitation of something they don't believe. Being as good Americans as any of us, they correctly point out that a national pledge should be something every good American can endorse. By putting "under God" into it, a pandering Congress during the McCarthy witch-hunt era made it divisive, including words that some good Americans cannot endorse. The stated purpose of that at the time was to distinguish our country from the old USSR, whose government was anti-theistic; but since when do we define ourselves by our enemies, and now that the USSR is defunct, what is the purpose today? In addition, the mere fact that another country coerces its people toward atheism doesn't justify our coercing people toward theism. Our response should have been to endorse the freedom to worship as one sees fit, not to force people to worship.

Those who oppose the McCarthy-era version of the pledge on these grounds are not objecting to people voluntarily saying these words. They're objecting to the government pushing it on people, thereby denying our history as a nation with a secular government and a commitment to religious freedom, and also undermining the religious freedom on which the nation was founded. The fact that they can opt out doesn't change the fact that they're being pressured into saying words they don't believe, which have nothing to do with their status as Americans.

I remember when this issue arose nationally in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Congress took up the issue, and pandering Congressmen made a point of telling the nation that they would recite the pledge to begin their day. Listening to the recitation, one could clearly hear representatives raising their voices and shouting "under God," making a point with these words in particular. Listening to them, you might have wondered whether they thought God was going deaf. They weren't being patriotic, they were taunting their adversaries, shoving the pledge down their throats. That is not what a pledge to one's country should be about.

You are correct that some atheists act very similar to the "fundies," including the hypocrisy. However, the mere fact that they oppose "under God" in the pledge is not an example of that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, I think you pulled something out of this post that I did not. I thought that the "guest" made a valid point. The Christian Fundamentalists do certianly try to force an agenda down the throats of everyone. That is their belief system, and they certainly have the right to seek to spread their sense of divinity as they choose; provided that it does not violate the Constitution. As a Muslim, I am thankful that the Constitution has certain protections, and we have seen fit to extend those protections where appropriate.

However, I think the point that the poster was making was simply that those that are attempting to change the pledge are also trying to promote a belief system and, in doing so, change the behavior of people that has existed for some time now. When I say "under God", I have a much different thought in my head than Pat Robertson, I am sure. However, those who are seeking to change the pledge are looking to stop something that my family has said/done in the classroom for 3 generations, and that other Christian, Jewish, etc. families have also done.

You might say that it is for freedom, and you give good reasons for your opinion. However, at the end of the day, you still want to change something that others believe is right, so that it can be more in line with your beliefs. So, while you feel as though there is more merit to your claim because it is in the name of "freedom" and not "religion", are we really talking of a horse of a different color?

[Guest Patriot]

You just can't seem to avoid displaying what an ignorant wanker you are every time you sit at a keyboard.

This is not an anti-God issue.  The teacher made the claim that only those who accept Christ can attain heaven.  So, the Jews are screwed?  All tho poor innocents who trod the earth before the time of Chist are up Sh*t's Creek without a paddle?  There'll be no Native Americans in heaven?  NOBODY KNOWS for SURE and is entirely wrong for the man to be making those remarks in a public school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Put the Kool-aid down and read my post again. I said the anti-God CROWD, in reference to the atheists who have come out of the woodwork in support of this issue. Comprehension is a wonderful thing, try a little harder, you can do it.

[Guest Guest]

Put the Kool-aid down and read my post again. I said the anti-God CROWD, in reference to the atheists who have come out of the woodwork in support of this issue. Comprehension is a wonderful thing, try a little harder, you can do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And still ANOTHER ASININE Kool-Aid remark from you, aren't you bored with your idiotic self yet?

And try to open your narrow little mind for a second or two. Your statement like most of those you make is meaningless because this issue has nothing to do with a God crowd or an anti-God crowd as you seem to think, if you think at all.

It's the INAPPROPRIATE FOR A CLASSROOM remarks by a teacher.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Care to cite some sources for your claim there, mister 2smart4u? Go on, let the whole world see who these "greatest minds in science" are...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll give you 3. Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle and his collaborator Chandra Wicks. Together they have won the Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal for Science among many other awards. Wicks holds the highest doctorate from Cambridge. He is a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff U. Together, they ran the numbers to determine the mathematical possibility of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. They concluded that the odds were 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros, or "so utterly miniscule" as to make Darwin's theory of evolution absurd.

Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, also stated that the spontaneous evolution of life "could not be reconciled with the facts".

Anything else I can clue you in on, just ask.

[Guest Guest]

You nailed it.  Reading this garbage from the anti-God crowd you realize how mean-spirited and angry they are. I think what they're missing is God's love in their lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you are missing a functioning brain in your skull

[Guest Guest]

I'll give you 3.  Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle and his collaborator Chandra Wicks. Together they have won the Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal for Science among many other awards.  Wicks holds the highest doctorate from Cambridge. He is  a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff U. Together, they ran the numbers to determine the mathematical possibility of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. They concluded that the odds were 1 to 1  followed by 40,000 zeros, or "so utterly miniscule" as to make Darwin's theory of evolution absurd.

  Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, also stated that the spontaneous evolution of life "could not be reconciled with the facts".

  Anything else I can clue you in on, just ask.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You aren't too smart for anybody, and judging by your posts you couldn't clue someone in on how to catch a cold in a rainstorm.

[Guest WilliamK]

Okay, let me play devil's advocate. 

How does "under God" favor any religion over another?  The vast majority of religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) practiced in the United States believe in one God (their "middle men" are different, but the religious among us all seem to believe in one God).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A thought experiment:

Replace "under God" with "under goddess". It doesn't specify which goddess. Heck, it isn't even capitalized, so unlike "under God", it doesn't even imply a goddess who's name is "Goddess". Must be ok then, right?

The problem, of course, (as you mentioned later in your post) is that this would exclude some religions while paying tribute to others. The only real difference between "under God" and "under goddess" is the size of the included and excluded groups. Does something that is wrong for a minority to do to a majority become right when a majority does it to a minority?

By the way, Buddhism has no gods. So it isn't just the areligious who are excluded by "under God".

No sensible person will really believe that "under God" was ever intended to refer to any gods other than the christian one. The pretense that it is inclusive of muslims, hindus, etc., is just that: a pretense.

Good devil's advocacy, by the way.

[Guest WilliamK]

I'll give you 3.  Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle and his collaborator Chandra Wicks. Together they have won the Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal for Science among many other awards.  Wicks holds the highest doctorate from Cambridge. He is  a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff U. Together, they ran the numbers to determine the mathematical possibility of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. They concluded that the odds were 1 to 1  followed by 40,000 zeros, or "so utterly miniscule" as to make Darwin's theory of evolution absurd.

  Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, also stated that the spontaneous evolution of life "could not be reconciled with the facts".

  Anything else I can clue you in on, just ask.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Basic enzymes arising by random processes was not a topic of discussion. The claim you were challenged on was the one about the evolution of the human eye.

Additionally, the odds of basic enzymes arising by random processes was not a topic of the discussion, and can not "make Darwin's theory of evolution absurd", as the theory of evolution claims nothing at all about that. It doesn't matter whether these enzymes you speak of were the result of natural events, hitched a ride on a comet, were planted here by aliens, cooked up by leprechauns, or magically appeared when God said "Let there be enzymes". Evolution only addresses things that have happened since then.

Now, care to back up your claim about the evolution of the eye?

[Strife767]

Actually, you are misguided.  I do not automatically assume that "under God" cannot mean "under Allah", "under Jesus", "under Mohammad", "under Buddha", "under Abraham" or even "under a Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Sure, but keeping "under God" in is unfair to non-theistic religions/agnoticism/atheism/etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Strife767]

What a  surprise that you quote Darwiniac literature to support the rediculous notion that the eye was the result of the accidential coming together of millions of mathematically impossible alterations in exactly the right sequence without any "intelligence" involved.

Can you, or can you not, refute the evidence?

Also, even if you could, the fact that something is or seems "too complex" to have happened one way does nothing to prove it did happen another way (in this case, a creator/designer)--this is the fallacy of the argument from incredulity. Two thousand years ago, the same could be said about rain. Just because we don't know how something works right now doesn't mean "God did it" or that we never well know.

But in this case, we do know--you're just ignoring the evidence because it comes from a source you feel so insecurely threatened by. Ignore the evidence and cling to your faith all you want, but don't for a moment act like you could get away with that 'clinging' as some sort of opposing argument or refutation.

Only the most extreme of the Daffy Darwiniacs still cling to that Disneyland story.  You're obviously one of them and that's fine with me, I'm not here to convert you, only to show you the light.

Uh huh, yeah, whatever--so, can you refute any of the evidence? Put up or shut up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Strife767]

Okay, let me play devil's advocate. 

How does "under God" favor any religion over another?  The vast majority of religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) practiced in the United States believe in one God (their "middle men" are different, but the religious among us all seem to believe in one God).

Untrue:

1. Not all religions are theistic (Buddhism etc.)

2. Atheism/agnositicism/humanism should not be undermined

That's basically it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Strife767]

I'll give you 3.  Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle and his collaborator Chandra Wicks. Together they have won the Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal for Science among many other awards.  Wicks holds the highest doctorate from Cambridge. He is  a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff U. Together, they ran the numbers to determine the mathematical possibility of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. They concluded that the odds were 1 to 1  followed by 40,000 zeros, or "so utterly miniscule" as to make Darwin's theory of evolution absurd.

This is a straw man argument:

These analogies have been rejected by biologists as a straw man argument. Richard Dawkins, for example, wrote in The Blind Watchmaker:

If he'd said 'chance' instead of 'natural selection' he'd have been right. Indeed, I regretted having to expose him as one of the many toilers under the profound misapprehension that natural selection is chance.

And he's right. Natural selection is the exact opposite of random--referring to evolution as being something that relies wholly on "chance" is a well-known straw man argument intellectually dishonest creationists like to use, because it's a lot easier to attack evolution when you falsely redefine it. That's not what evolution is, and you know it We're not stupid, you know--people stopped truly falling for this decades ago.

Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, also stated that the spontaneous evolution of life "could not be reconciled with the facts".

Really? 'Cause, you know...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/y9utye <-- this is a Google search for the phrases "francis crick" and "could not be reconciled with the facts". The only place where those words are attributed to that man are in...surprise, surprise...forum posts made by people like you (some of them worded exactly the same--can't say I'm surprised). I'm going to have to call bullshit on this quote unless you can verify where _exactly_ it came from. ALSO! You do know that this still wouldn't prove anything, right? This is just an argument from authority (which is ironic considering how much you guys hate scientists)--just because someone says something doesn't mean it's right--no matter who that person is. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Hmmm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, also stated that the spontaneous evolution of life "could not be reconciled with the facts".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Finding this rather odd as I seem to recall Crick not being at all a creationist, I turned to my good friend Google for assistance. It turns out the words you've shown in quotation marks are not those of Francis Crick, but Ann Coulter from her book titled "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". In fact, your whole paragraph matches what she said almost verbatim, except that the phrase you show in quotes was not originally in quotes, and was not what Coulter claimed that Crick said. Here's what Coulter said in her book. (as gleaned from several places on the web, I don't have the book itself handy for verification)

Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his codiscovery of DNA, also realized that the spontaneous evolution of life could not be reconciled with the facts. As he said, "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd."

But that's not the end of this sorry tale. It turns out that Coulter has misattributed a quote. Those are not the words of Francis Crick, but of Fred Hoyle.

Really 2smart, If you want to live up to your braggart name, you'll have to do much better than misquoting Ann Coulter misquoting Fred Hoyle.

Anything else I can clue you in on, just ask.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll pass. Thanks.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, I think you pulled something out of this post that I did not.  I thought that the "guest" made a valid point.  The Christian Fundamentalists do certianly try to force an agenda down the throats of everyone.  That is their belief system, and they certainly have the right to seek to spread their sense of divinity as they choose; provided that it does not violate the Constitution.  As a Muslim, I am thankful that the Constitution has certain protections, and we have seen fit to extend those protections where appropriate.

However, I think the point that the poster was making was simply that those that are attempting to change the pledge are also trying to promote a belief system and, in doing so, change the behavior of people that has existed for some time now.  When I say "under God", I have a much different thought in my head than Pat Robertson, I am sure.  However, those who are seeking to change the pledge are looking to stop something that my family has said/done in the classroom for 3 generations, and that other Christian, Jewish, etc. families have also done.

You might say that it is for freedom, and you give good reasons for your opinion.  However, at the end of the day, you still want to change something that others believe is right, so that it can be more in line with your beliefs.  So, while you feel as though there is more merit to your claim because it is in the name of "freedom" and not "religion", are we really talking of a horse of a different color?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only if we accept that the principle of religious neutrality in government should be abandoned. Just because government has in the past promoted a theistic view does not mean it did so consistent with Constitutional principles or that the practice can continue without making second-class citizens of those who do not beleive in a god.

[Guest Steve_C]

I'll give you 3.  Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle and his collaborator Chandra Wicks. Together they have won the Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal for Science among many other awards.  Wicks holds the highest doctorate from Cambridge. He is  a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff U. Together, they ran the numbers to determine the mathematical possibility of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. They concluded that the odds were 1 to 1  followed by 40,000 zeros, or "so utterly miniscule" as to make Darwin's theory of evolution absurd.

  Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, also stated that the spontaneous evolution of life "could not be reconciled with the facts".

  Anything else I can clue you in on, just ask.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Physicists and Mathemiticians almost always get BIOLOGY wrong.

They don't even study biology. They study COSMOLOGY. Plus once I do a little research I'll probably find that Chandra and Hoyle never endored ID or a Creator. Just a hunch.

Try this: if evolution is so unlikely... how even more unlikely a god must be.

I think Crick was ageeing with evolution. No one says that it's SPONTANEOUS. That would support the idea of a creator.

Too funny.

You might want to read a little about Crick before you look for him to support your assinine ideas.

He wanted to create a national holday in England... called...

suspense killing you?

are you sure you haven't guessed it yet?

well?

DARWIN DAY.

More on Crick below.

Religious Beliefs

The conservative political analyst Mark Steyn published a pop psychoanalysis of Crick and an attempted deconstruction of Crick's scientific motivations.[47] Steyn characterized Crick as a militant atheist and asserted that it was his atheism that "drove" Crick to move beyond conventional molecular biology towards speculative topics such as panspermia. Steyn described the theory of directed panspermia as amounting to, "gods in the skies who fertilize the earth and then retreat to the heavens beyond our reach." Steyn categorized Crick’s ideas on directed panspermia as a result of "hyper-rationalism" that, "lead him round to embracing a belief in a celestial creator of human life, indeed a deus ex machina."

Steyn's critique of Crick ignored the fact that Crick never held a belief in panspermia. Crick explored the hypothesis that it might be possible for life forms to be moved from one planet to another. What "drove" Crick towards speculation about directed panspermia was the difficulty of imagining how a complex system like a cell could arise under pre-biotic conditions from non-living chemical components. After ribozymes were discovered, Crick became much less interested in panspermia because it was then much easier to imagine the pre-biotic origins of life as being made possible by some set of simple self-replicating polymers.

Creationism

It has been suggested by some observers that Crick's speculation about panspermia, "fits neatly into the intelligent design concept."[48] Crick's name was raised in this context in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial over the teaching of intelligent design. However, as a scientist, Crick was concerned with the power of natural processes such as evolution to account for natural phenomena and felt that religiously inspired beliefs are often wrong and cannot be trusted to provide a sound basis for science.

Crick wrote, "The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas." (source: The Astonishing Hypothesis)

In a 1987 case before the Supreme Court, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."[49] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[50]

[Guest Paul]

Physicists and Mathemiticians almost always get BIOLOGY wrong.

They don't even study biology. They study COSMOLOGY. Plus once I do a little research I'll probably find that Chandra and Hoyle never endored ID or a Creator. Just a hunch.

Try this: if evolution is so unlikely... how even more unlikely a god must be.

I think Crick was ageeing with evolution. No one says that it's SPONTANEOUS. That would support the idea of a creator.

Too funny.

You might want to read a little about Crick before you look for him to support your assinine ideas.

He wanted to create a national holday in England... called...

suspense killing you?

are you sure you haven't guessed it yet?

well?

DARWIN DAY.

More on Crick below.

Religious Beliefs

The conservative political analyst Mark Steyn published a pop psychoanalysis of Crick and an attempted deconstruction of Crick's scientific motivations.[47] Steyn characterized Crick as a militant atheist and asserted that it was his atheism that "drove" Crick to move beyond conventional molecular biology towards speculative topics such as panspermia. Steyn described the theory of directed panspermia as amounting to, "gods in the skies who fertilize the earth and then retreat to the heavens beyond our reach." Steyn categorized Crick’s ideas on directed panspermia as a result of "hyper-rationalism" that, "lead him round to embracing a belief in a celestial creator of human life, indeed a deus ex machina."

Steyn's critique of Crick ignored the fact that Crick never held a belief in panspermia. Crick explored the hypothesis that it might be possible for life forms to be moved from one planet to another. What "drove" Crick towards speculation about directed panspermia was the difficulty of imagining how a complex system like a cell could arise under pre-biotic conditions from non-living chemical components. After ribozymes were discovered, Crick became much less interested in panspermia because it was then much easier to imagine the pre-biotic origins of life as being made possible by some set of simple self-replicating polymers.

Creationism

It has been suggested by some observers that Crick's speculation about panspermia, "fits neatly into the intelligent design concept."[48] Crick's name was raised in this context in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial over the teaching of intelligent design. However, as a scientist, Crick was concerned with the power of natural processes such as evolution to account for natural phenomena and felt that religiously inspired beliefs are often wrong and cannot be trusted to provide a sound basis for science.

Crick wrote, "The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas." (source: The Astonishing Hypothesis)

In a 1987 case before the Supreme Court, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."[49] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[50]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not only that, but if the theory is so wrong, why does it work so well, and why is it accepted and applied all over the world? These are not mere hypothetical musings, they are practical applications in biology and medicine.

[Guest Steve_C]

Not only that, but if the theory is so wrong, why does it work so well, and why is it accepted and applied all over the world? These are not mere hypothetical musings, they are practical applications in biology and medicine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to be reiligious to believe that we didn't evolve. That we were *poofed* into existence.

Do people who deny the reality of evolution believe in the story of Adam and Eve as fact? The Ark?

And if they do... where's the evidence?

Evolution is proven, it is a fact.

History teachers should not be abusing children by filling their heads with uninformed religously warped views of scientific fact.

[Strife767]

Finding this rather odd as I seem to recall Crick not being at all a creationist, I turned to my good friend Google for assistance. It turns out the words you've shown in quotation marks are not those of Francis Crick, but Ann Coulter from her book titled "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". In fact, your whole paragraph matches what she said almost verbatim, except that the phrase you show in quotes was not originally in quotes, and was not what Coulter claimed that Crick said. Here's what Coulter said in her book. (as gleaned from several places on the web, I don't have the book itself handy for verification)

Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his codiscovery of DNA, also realized that the spontaneous evolution of life could not be reconciled with the facts. As he said, "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd."

But that's not the end of this sorry tale. It turns out that Coulter has misattributed a quote. Those are not the words of Francis Crick, but of Fred Hoyle.

Really 2smart, If you want to live up to your braggart name, you'll have to do much better than misquoting Ann Coulter misquoting Fred Hoyle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love to see a dishonest/fallacious argument just completely destroyed like this. Nice work.