Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Creationist Arguments

[Gunnar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKi7x7qkyo

Clint is a professional biologist and educator, but above all, Clint LOVES reptiles and he loves to share that love with everyone he meets.

In addition to the above, he is a strongly religious person who teaches biology at BYU. He maintains (and I believe him) that Creationists have inadvertently driven far more people from religion to atheism than they have converted from atheism to religion. He also claims that because of his honest teaching and advocacy of the beautiful realities and evidence of evolution, more BYU students credit him with strengthening their religious beliefs and testimonies than credit any of their religion professors for doing so.

Though I certainly agree with him about the reality of biological evolution, I don't come very close to sharing many of his religious convictions. I value and respect him for advocating that one doesn't necessarily have to reject religion to understand and acknowledge the reality of evolution. Personally, my disillusionment and doubts about religion had little or nothing to do with what I have learned about scientific reality, but from learning how dishonest, irrational and even cruel much of religious doctrine and practice have proven to be. The one true and practical religious ideal I accept is striving to treat others kindly and honestly, as you want others to treat you. This is, in the long run, more conducive to real happiness and success and self-respect than selfishly harming and taking unfair advantage of others. This is the baby that must not be thrown out with the bathwater! Too much else that passes for religious doctrine and practice is like mere chaff that sometimes obscures that one bedrock principle and, at worst, sometimes even contradicts it.

[Some Schmo]

The one true and practical religious ideal I accept is striving to treat others kindly and honestly, as you want others to treat you. This is, in the long run, more conducive to real happiness and success and self-respect than selfishly harming and taking unfair advantage of others.

I don't know that that's really a religious ideal; certainly, it's not a primary or first order ideal. It's lower on the totem pole than other religious ideals, like patriarchy, unquestioning loyalty (like the mafia) and bigotry toward people with differing beliefs.

Treating others kindly is more of a game theory ideal than a religious one, in my opinion. There seem to be plenty of religions that place little to no value on treating others kindly. How would evangelicals be convinced to vote for Trump if treating others kindly was a first order ideal, for instance?

Religion gets no credit for advocating to treat others kindly. They coopted common sense and called it a command from their god, to be obeyed only when convenient.

They don't live like they believe it. It just sounds good in a brochure.

[Some Schmo]

I was talking to a group of people and something was said that reminded me of evolution, and I made a comment about how amazing the diversity of life we've witnessed is as a result of evolution. I wasn't trying to start an argument; I was simply commenting on the implications of the science.

One of the participants in that conversation was a boy of about 14, and his comment was, "I understand evolution but I'm a creationist." I told him he could believe whatever he wants, but his belief has no influence on the truth. I also told him that if he really understood evolution, he'd be forced to accept it, because understanding it is realizing the simplicity and power of the explanation, and therefore, he didn't really understand it. It's been my experience that people interested in maintaining their creationist belief subsumed any evolution belief into a secular category of "lessness" and refused to properly understand it as a result. I felt good about giving him (and anyone else listening who believed the same thing) crap for believing BS.

I have no tolerance for people denying science, and more people need to speak up about it when they get these kinds of chances. Criticism of science is one thing, outright denial is stupid. If I denied science like these idiots do, I'd never get on an airplane, for instance, because flying is only possible through an understanding of physics. I wouldn't see a doctor either. Vaccine skepticism is the closest these morons come to standing by their convictions, and they're getting sick and dying because of it. You notice religious people have no problem with, say, computer science? It doesn't conflict with preconceived notions of supernatural beings, so there's no threat to the idiot ideas they hold dear.

Religion makes people dumber (or maybe it would be more accurate to say that religion prevents people from reaching their potential). That much is clear.

[Gunnar]

The one true and practical religious ideal I accept is striving to treat others kindly and honestly, as you want others to treat you. This is, in the long run, more conducive to real happiness and success and self-respect than selfishly harming and taking unfair advantage of others.

I don't know that that's really a religious ideal; certainly, it's not a primary or first order ideal. It's lower on the totem pole than other religious ideals, like patriarchy, unquestioning loyalty (like the mafia) and bigotry toward people with differing beliefs.

Treating others kindly is more of a game theory ideal than a religious one, in my opinion. There seem to be plenty of religions that place little to no value on treating others kindly. How would evangelicals be convinced to vote for Trump if treating others kindly was a first order ideal, for instance?

Religion gets no credit for advocating to treat others kindly. They coopted common sense and called it a command from their god, to be obeyed only when convenient.

They don't live like they believe it. It just sounds good in a brochure.

What I'm saying is that any religion that doesn't have that as their overriding bedrock principle is not worth any serious consideration at all and deserves to be rejected. I acknowledge that this principle does not belong exclusively to religions. One doesn't have to necessarily believe in the existence of some sort of supernatural deities to embrace it and live it. If belief in God or gods is one's main motivation for embracing and living it, then I respect their belief in God, as long as they don't invoke God as justification to condemn or punish others merely for not sharing in that belief.

I like how the rabbi Gamaliel, who was a contemporary and mentor to Paul, the Apostle, according to the Acts , in The Bible, put it: "That which is hateful to you, do not unto another. That is the entirety of the law. Everything else is commentary." Even whether or not one believes in God is less important to me than that.

[Gadianton]

I don't think we should read "treat others kindly" into the golden rule, which itself didn't originate in strictly religious context anyway. Most of these nut jobs -- you know who I'm talking about -- would consistently apply the rule to a point. Much of what they justify, the Nazi playbook, is under the guise of the rule of law. Yes, some fat-ass wearing protective gear he can barely move in, running through a strawberry field to tackle and detain a worker is doing the right thing because the law. And those who justify it absolutely will say they want the same thing done to them if they are in violation of the law.

You'd be surprised what the golden rule justifies, because you would be shocked at just how delusional certain people are such that they can consistently tolerate cruelty to others by the golden rule because they would say they would deserve it also in that situation, they just don't see themselves at risk of ever being in that situation.

Further, even worse, the people at issue here often are "kind" in personal interactions. The present-day Nazis in my neighborhood will be the first to help out anyone in the neighborhood in terms of day-to-day help, but in terms of collective action, they eagerly destroy lives. The disconnect is in that their politico-religious lives are something of a fantasy. They are unlikely to ever meet face-to-face with what they unleash.

[Gunnar]

I was talking to a group of people and something was said that reminded me of evolution, and I made a comment about how amazing the diversity of life we've witnessed is as a result of evolution. I wasn't trying to start an argument; I was simply commenting on the implications of the science.

One of the participants in that conversation was a boy of about 14, and his comment was, "I understand evolution but I'm a creationist." I told him he could believe whatever he wants, but his belief has no influence on the truth. I also told him that if he really understood evolution, he'd be forced to accept it, because understanding it is realizing the simplicity and power of the explanation, and therefore, he didn't really understand it. It's been my experience that people interested in maintaining their creationist belief subsumed any evolution belief into a secular category of "lessness" and refused to properly understand it as a result. I felt good about giving him (and anyone else listening who believed the same thing) crap for believing BS.

I have no tolerance for people denying science, and more people need to speak up about it when they get these kinds of chances. Criticism of science is one thing, outright denial is stupid. If I denied science like these idiots do, I'd never get on an airplane, for instance, because flying is only possible through an understanding of physics. I wouldn't see a doctor either. Vaccine skepticism is the closest these morons come to standing by their convictions, and they're getting sick and dying because of it. You notice religious people have no problem with, say, computer science? It doesn't conflict with preconceived notions of supernatural beings, so there's no threat to the idiot ideas they hold dear.

Religion makes people dumber (or maybe it would be more accurate to say that religion prevents people from reaching their potential). That much is clear.

As I'm sure you realize, I have no argument with any of the above.

[Some Schmo]

What I'm saying is that any religion that doesn't have that as their overriding bedrock principle is not worth any serious consideration at all and deserves to be rejected. I acknowledge that this principle does not belong exclusively to religions. One doesn't have to necessarily believe in the existence of some sort of supernatural deities to embrace it and live it. If belief in God or gods is one's main motivation for embracing and living it, then respect their belief in God, as long as they don't invoke God as justification to condemn or punish others merely for not sharing in that belief.

I like how the rabbi Gamaliel, who was a contemporary and mentor to Paul, the Apostle, according to the Acts , in The Bible, put it: "That which is hateful to you, do not unto another. That is the entirety of the law. Everything else is commentary." Even whether or not one believes in God is less important to me than that.

I think it's pretty common for people to think kindness towards others is a religious principle, but they also tend to think their religion divine. They are mistaken. I think you've associated kindness with religion based on self-conditioning, because you value kindness, and you wanted to believe you were getting that from your religion when you were active.

Based on my experience, the bedrock principle in most religions is hypocrisy. Kindness gets lip service, but that's about it. Of course, I'm talking practical outcomes, not stated religious goals.

I can't think of a single religion I've heard of where kindness was the bedrock ideal of that religion, whether spoken or in practice.

[Some Schmo]

You'd be surprised what the golden rule justifies, because you would be shocked at just how delusional certain people are such that they can consistently tolerate cruelty to others by the golden rule because they would say they would deserve it also in that situation, they just don't see themselves at risk of ever being in that situation.

This is insightful.

[Gunnar]

What I'm saying is that any religion that doesn't have that as their overriding bedrock principle is not worth any serious consideration at all and deserves to be rejected. I acknowledge that this principle does not belong exclusively to religions. One doesn't have to necessarily believe in the existence of some sort of supernatural deities to embrace it and live it. If belief in God or gods is one's main motivation for embracing and living it, then respect their belief in God, as long as they don't invoke God as justification to condemn or punish others merely for not sharing in that belief.

I like how the rabbi Gamaliel, who was a contemporary and mentor to Paul, the Apostle, according to the Acts , in The Bible, put it: "That which is hateful to you, do not unto another. That is the entirety of the law. Everything else is commentary." Even whether or not one believes in God is less important to me than that.

I think it's pretty common for people to think kindness towards others is a religious principle, but they also tend to think their religion divine. They are mistaken. I think you've associated kindness with religion based on self-conditioning, because you value kindness, and you wanted to believe you were getting that from your religion when you were active.

Based on my experience, the bedrock principle in most religions is hypocrisy. Kindness gets lip service, but that's about it. Of course, I'm talking practical outcomes, not stated religious goals.

I can't think of a single religion I've heard of where kindness was the bedrock ideal of that religion, whether spoken or in practice.

Yes, that's what I meant, when I said that too much of what passes for religious doctrine and practice is like chaff, that too often obscures that bedrock ideal and sometimes even violates it.

[Gunnar]

I don't think we should read "treat others kindly" into the golden rule, which itself didn't originate in strictly religious context anyway. Most of these nut jobs -- you know who I'm talking about -- would consistently apply the rule to a point. Much of what they justify, the Nazi playbook, is under the guise of the rule of law. Yes, some fat-ass wearing protective gear he can barely move in, running through a strawberry field to tackle and detain a worker is doing the right thing because the law. And those who justify it absolutely will say they want the same thing done to them if they are in violation of the law.

You'd be surprised what the golden rule justifies, because you would be shocked at just how delusional certain people are such that they can consistently tolerate cruelty to others by the golden rule because they would say they would deserve it also in that situation, they just don't see themselves at risk of ever being in that situation.

Further, even worse, the people at issue here often are "kind" in personal interactions. The present-day Nazis in my neighborhood will be the first to help out anyone in the neighborhood in terms of day-to-day help, but in terms of collective action, they eagerly destroy lives. The disconnect is in that their politico-religious lives are something of a fantasy. They are unlikely to ever meet face-to-face with what they unleash.

I mostly agree! See my last reply to Schmo.