Saturday, April 5, 2008

The church of Darwin

The church of Darwin's ten commandments

1) Thou shalt have no other theories before mine.

2) Thou shalt not allow any books with any other theories in thy schools. Such books shalt be banned and teachers that teach or mention any other theories shalt be fired.

3) Thou shalt not take evolutionary theory in vain or make fun of Darwinism by making fun of humans evolving from monkeys.

4) Remember Charles Darwin day on February 12 and keep it relevant. For billions and billions of years life evolved on planet earth through natural selection and mutations. Remember Darwin day and honor his legacy through global celebrations and propaganda.

5) Honor others that follow after Darwin such as Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and elite humanists world-wide. Also, honor your parents if they believe Darwin theory.

6) Thou shalt not be restrained from engaging in any sexual behavior between consenting people and adultery is just a fundamentalist religious concept with no meaning.

7) Thou shalt not kill, unless elite Darwin humanists authorize it in such cases as abortion.

8) Thou shalt not steal unless elite humanist socialists authorize it to redistribute wealth and further Darwin policy.

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness unless it is done to promote the objectives of elitist government officials. Propaganda based on lies is acceptable to promote politically correct objectives such as Darwinism and global warming hysteria.

10) Covet anything you want and carry your desires to the elite humanists government officials who will place you in a waiting line and decide the merits of your case in a week or perhaps a year or two.

The church of Darwin is building a new cathedral of nine floors consisting of 2 through 10. The foundation and first floor will be added later when elite cosmetologists devise a theory for the origin of matter/energy. Until the foundation and first floor are built, ya'll be careful now ye hear!

Sweet Jazzy Cat


Oliver said...

One of the things I hope to do during my time in Mississippi is to work to end misconceptions about the theory of evolution, such as the myth that scientist are being fired for their religious beliefs. The theory of evolution is a strong theory that has branched off into newer sciences such as microbiology and genetics. When scientist work to stop the SARS virus or produce newer types of corn hybrids, they are using the latest advances in evolutionary science. You have probably been assisted in your life by scientist using the theory of evolution.

jazzycat said...

Thanks. As an engineer by training, I am aware of the benefits that have resulted as a result of scientific advancements. I am not aware of the theory of evolution being crucial to any scientific advancements. Perhaps you can show some advancement that would not have been possible without knowledge derived from macroevolution. No knowledgeable Christian would deny microevolution.

I have read of cases where teachers and college professors have been fired and/or denied tenure due to their non-consensus views on things like evolution and global warming. Since you visit churches to increase your knowledge, I would encourage you to view the upcoming movie by Ben Stein, “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” that is about the subject of intimidation and firing of scientists that do not conform to the accepted views on evolution and other subjects. In short it will be on the subject of how our universities have closed minds on many subjects of scientific investigation to the point of firing and impugning anyone who does not conform to accepted views.

Make no mistake, as I pointed out on a recent post at Bluecollar, atheism is a faith based belief system with a foundation that is ultimately based on nonsense when it comes to explaining the ultimate question of why is there something instead of nothing.

Oliver said...


I'd like to address each of your three points:

1) Macroevolution is the theory that explains how a single species can branch off into multiple species. It is difficult to observe macroevolution because it requires observing several generations of a species, but it is possible with species that have short lifespans. In 1971, an experiment was developed to illustrate how a species of fruit flies can branch into two species in just under two weeks, which is short enough to be added to the curriculum of a college course on the topic of evolution. Here's a link to the abstract on that study. Here's another page with 29 more evidences for macroevolution.

The theory of macroevolution is easily defended through observable evidence, but you asked for advances related to macroevolution. One advance is by understanding the change by which animals and humans undergo from our study of the past, we can reliable predict how our bodies will change in the future. The entire scientific field of zoology depends on macroevolution, and zoology has given us deeper understanding into heredity and reproduction, both of which yield valuable resources in understanding genetic disorders. For studies related to the advances which use macroevolution, one need only do a search of macroevolution on Google Scholar (there are over 8000 peer reviewed works).

Evolution produced Jazzy Cat!

2) I'm not spending a dime on creationist propaganda. It's free for me to walk into church. It cost money to go to the theater. All of the creationist scientist mentioned in the film were fired, dismissed, or denied tenure because of reasons related to their job performance and not because of their religious beliefs. I have already read several reviews of the movie and know the general content of the film. Expelled Exposed has biased and non-biased reviews of the film and detailed descriptions of each of the fired scientists. The science portrayed in the film is flawed, therefore it will only chance the minds of people who are unable to see past the filmmakers' lies.

Besides, I'm a regular commenter on the Expelled movie blog site. The level of discourse on those forums reach the respectability of a junior high pep rally.

3) You characterize atheism as "nonsense" because we have "something instead of nothing." You have hit upon a difficult topic in the scientific community: we have no all-encompassing explanation for the origin of the universe. It is a difficult question, but it has nothing to do with atheism; it has to do with a gap in our scientific knowledge. It is not fair to call atheism nonsense because of an unrelated science debate. The gap in our knowledge does not constitute "God".

Just for you, I am going to call Christianity nonsense because it has talking snakes, zombie saviors, and a God who sends people to Heaven or Hell based on a checklist of stuff that you must believe happed exactly once 2000 years ago.

jazzycat said...

1) Already a website bashing "Expelled" before it even comes to the theaters!!!! Did it ever occur to you that the reviews that you trust on "Expelled" might be the ones that are biased? For example: Kinda like some of the propaganda I have seen on global warming that I have proof that are biased including the Gore propaganda movie.

2) I am not calling atheism nonsense because of an unrelated science debate. I am calling it nonsense because there are only two possibilities for the origin of matter/energy without a creator. The first possibility of something coming from nothing is impossible and certainly nonsense. The second possibility of matter/energy being self-existent and eternal has been disproved by science, which agrees with Christianity that the universe had a beginning. The view of science is that the universe is expanding and will never collapse back upon itself. Further, it will eventually (apart from a creator) burn itself out like a candle and become cold and dead. If it were eternal, this would have already happen. Therefore, the universe and the matter/energy of the universe had a beginning. This beginning cannot be explained without an uncaused cause. A cause that is in a state of being rather than becoming is the only logical choice.

3) Since atheism rules out the possibility of a creator to explain the GAP that you allude to, it is a belief that is based on faith. You have faith that the thing you can’t explain or even offer a theory on was not caused by a supreme being. As for evolution, even if it were totally correct it would not prove there is no supreme-being or Christianity!

Conclusion: You are right that your “gap” doesn’t constitute God. There are many ancient texts and historical facts that point to the God of the Bible being true. You do not accept them, but they are there nonetheless. At the very least, a rational scientist that were not believing on faith alone in a godless beginning of the universe, would consider a creator as a possible explanation for the origin of matter. To rule it out totally is to abandon scientific investigation and resort to faith. Your faith is based on nothing, while Christian faith is based on the historical record, the Holy Bible, other ancient texts, and also faith. Perhaps you weren’t serious, but your view that one’s eternal destiny is based on a checklist of things to believe is off the mark.

Oliver said...

In each of the four links of my second post, I use a service called LinkBlip to see which links you clicked on. I can see that you clicked on the link for Expelled Exposed.

You completely ignored the other three links supporting macroevolution, plus you completely left out any mentioning of my support for the theory. This shows that you are unable to refute of my claims, thus are just going to ignore the situation and hope it goes away. I'm not going to stop you from being closed-minded on the matter. Remember, you still benefit from advances in theories that you reject.

jazzycat said...

You must have missed this statement in my last comment. As for evolution, even if it were totally correct it would not prove there is no supreme-being or Christianity!

I have no desire to study microbiology or try verify your claim that macro-evolution theories have been useful in medical advances. It seems to me that corn hybrids and DNA research would at best be dealing with mutations and micro-evolution rather than macro-evolution. Now going from corn to a peach tree or from fruit flies to birds would catch my attention. Do you have anything like that?

Also, you have done an excellent job of ignoring my proof that atheism is a faith based belief system and offered no counter for my explanation for the “gap” in scientific knowledge, which was based on science and logical reasoning.

Again, even if evolution is true it does not disprove a supreme-being or intelligent design. Can you show me that your atheism is not based on faith? If you can’t prove there is no supreme being, then why would that not at least be a possible explanation for the gap you admit exists?

Oliver said...

My apologies for missing the one line in your comment mentioning evolution. Your mischaracterization of evolution being the change of "corn to a peach tree or from fruit flies to birds" can be forgiven. Those changes you suggested are as absurd as they are impossible. I know that. You know that. There are many myths of what evolution is, and we need to work together to correct these errors in the popular concept of evolution.

I find your comment that you "have no desire to study microbiology" ripe with hypocrisy since you have devoted an entire blog to the topic. The ignorance and hostility that you show to this topic bothers me considering, as I’ve said before, you still benefit from the theories that you reject. Because of your hostility, this will be my last post. You may have the last word. I will not be returning to read whatever you say anyway.

My belief that there is no god is simply that: a belief. I am open to the possibility that there is god, but if there is, that god has made itself irrelevant. This god, if it wants me to follow him, should tell me this itself. No crazy fundies or ancient books of outlandish tales are going to convince me. I want proof.

It’s been fun. Really.

jazzycat said...

Indeed. I have enjoyed your visits. You have made some incorrect assumptions such as my being hostile, this blog being dedicated to the topic of evolution, all Christians being ignorant, etc. For example: My two blogs have about 500 posts and I would guess that no more than 1 or 2 deal with the subject of evolution.

As to Christians being ignorant....I would remind you that there are many scientists, doctors, and engineer that are Christians. Perhaps you have benefited from a Christian doctor, scientist or engineer.

Since you have admitted that you are an atheist by belief (faith), I find it remarkable that you consider believers in God by faith as being ignorant. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

I wish you well and hope you can resolve some of your anger issues with Christians.