It Is Stupid
Published by Greg September 15th, 2007 in Evolution v Creationism, Atheism and Religion, Creationism, Commentary
The It Is Written Guy telling us how absolutely fabulous Out of Thin Air will be. Personally, I think they pulled this Ouf of Their Ass. But I have not seen it yet, so who’s to say?It Is Written is, according the their web site:
… an international Christian television ministry … Founded in 1956 by George Vandeman, the theme of this non-profit ministry [is from] Matthew 4:4: “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
They have a new project, called “Out of Thin Air” … in which they will attempt to prove that Darwin was Wrong.
I am not on their mailing list, or anything. I came across it on a Google Ad on my own site, ironically! I normally don’t press any google ads (because it is against the law) but this one intriguqed me for some reason (that now slips from my mind…). And I’m out of town, so there is no way Google is ever going to know I pressed this ad.
Anyway, here is what It Is Written is sayin: They note that a couple of years ago, National Geographic came out with an issue that said, in big bold letters, on the cover,
The famous “Was Darwin Wrong” issue of National Geographic. Inside, they say “No, he was right.” An amazingly large number of creationists actually believed that National Geographic was opting out on Darwin (they never looked inside). It was a little like when the original War of the Worlds[Note 1] radio show came on, and in some parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania people thought it was a real news report (because the beginning was not aired), so they panicked and ran to the hills, where many remain today unconvinced that the “attack” was a fiction.
“Was Darwin Wrong?”
I remember when that came out. I was teaching an intro class in human evolution, with about 500 students in it. With that many students, there is a good number of creationists, even young earth creationists. One of these students approached me before lecture, holding up the new National Geographic that said “Was Darwin Wrong” and showed it to me. “What do you think of this, professor?” she asked.
I had not seen it before. I took the issue from her and said “I imagine the answer is inside somewhere … and the the answer will be ‘No!’, I’m sure…” … So I leafed through the mag, and quickly found the resounding “No!” that was inside, and handed it back to her.
How embarrassing.
OK, so Out of Thin Air starts with this cover about Darwin being wrong. Then they say that inside this issue of National Geographic, It Is Said that the answer is a Resounding No….
“… but now, we (”we” being It Is Written) want to ask this question ….. Was National Geographic wrong? …”
Well, what do you think their answer is going to be?
The premise of everything “It Is Written” does, thinks, and says is, essentially, biblical literalism. So I imagine that they are going to say that Darwin, who is much more recent than Moses, is wrong, because after thousands of years of philosophical, geographical, and scientific inquiry it is simply not possible that the beliefs about the natural world that were prevalent in the North Africa in the late Neolithic and Bronze Age (the where and when of the Bible’s authorship) have not changed. A lot can be learned in several thousand years. So yes, the bible and Darwin are going to be different, and in comparing the two, Darwin will be right and the bible will be wrong every time, in every detail.
But as biblical literalists, I suppose they will be saying the opposite.
Anyway, this “event” is going to be happening at churches all around North America, including 12 in Minnesota and two in Minneapolis. I’ve reserved my seats at the Windom Seventh Day Adventist church.
Do you think they’ll charge? I think they will, or at least pass the plate. But I could be wrong…
_________________________
Note 1:
H.G. Wells was a strong supporter of the theory of evolution, and saw every species as being engaged in a constant, and often brutal struggle for survival. In the book, the Martian/mankind conflict is portrayed as a similar struggle, but on a larger scale. The book explores the morality inherent in social Darwinism, an ideology of some prominence at the time. [source]
Regarding the “panic” with the War of the World’s radio broadcast: It may not thave happened exactly as I suggest here. See this.
“Darwin will be right and the bible will be wrong every time, in every detail.”
Wow. For someone who tries to pass himself off as rational and intelligent, that’s quite a statement. I’m assuming you’ve done the empirical studies necessary to back up a comment like that. Every time? In every detail? Hmmm.
I would suspect that where both state their position on the same matter, yes, the Bible will be wrong every time. And Darwin will be right. I’ve got a $20 that says I’m right. Anyone care to take the bet?
Of course, Darwin never expounded on lots of things in the Bible, so there are probably only a few books where a comparison could be made. Genesis comes to mind…
To deflate the delusions of bible literalists it is not necessary to prove any more than one item in it wrong.
For example, the creation myth presented in the bible is not literally correct.
Hmmm. Twenty bucks, you say? How about Darwin versus the Bible on the subject of race? Let’s compare:
DARWIN:
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the
savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous
apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his
nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in
a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and
some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or
Australian and the gorilla.” (The Descent of Man,1874, p. 178).
THE BIBLE:
“…and He made from one, every nation of mandkind to live on all the
face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the
boundaries of their habitation..” Acts 17:26
“And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel
to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe
and tongue and people….” Revelation 14:6
“Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God
is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and
worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Acts 10:34,35
Take your pick. The Bible speaks of the equality of races. Darwin
places some lower down the totem pole than others, claiming that
Aborigines and Blacks are closer to their ape roots than Caucasians.
Who’s right in this case?
QB
Quidel:
There is no need for exhaustive empirical study. The bible is not about science.
Regarding your Darwin quote: He was speaking specifically of the “break in the organic chain” (the differentiation between species) over time, and with respect to that question Darwin should not be interpreted as having the teleological slant you suggest here in your particular mined quote. He was, however, a relatively liberal English Gentleman, of the 19th century, and of course he and all the other western scholars, religious leaders, and so on of his time inclined to seeing “races” and differences between them that we now know are false.
As to the Biblical quote, I don’t think there is much evidence for the existence of angels. I don’t quite see the “equality of races” in this set of phrases you have chosen from the bible.
Not that this matters much. We were talking about science, and evolution in particular. It is quite possible, for instance, that the bible is more relevant or accurate in its discussion of, say, pastoralism in late Bronze Age North Africa than anything Darwin may have opined.
I leave you with this thought, from your bible: “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” [Exodus 21:20-21]
QB
The quote from Darwin is from a paragraph that begins:
He’s talking about the perceived gaps in evolution between man and other primates. I don’t see anything in there that indicates any scientific opinion about the equality of races, one way or the other.
Your quotes from the Bible, like most quotes from the Bible, are relatively meaningless, as they could mean anything you say they mean. I see nothing about the relative equality or inequality of races.
So for now, I’m holding on to my $20. I’ll give you another chance, though, to keep yours.