Randal Rauser and Ed Babinski: On Storytelling, Atheism, Christianity, God, the Cosmos, Miracles, Near Death Experiences, Scientific Hypotheses and Religious Beliefs

Randal Rauser
Randal Rauser

Randal, Thanks for your kind words here concerning something I wrote. You think I am a “great storyteller?” I think ancient Hebrews were “great storytellers” and I suspect you agree with me there, especially concerning the primeval history section of Genesis from the six-day creation to the Garden of Eden, Flood, and Tower of Babel stories.

Two items to clear up before proceeding further:

  1. Please call me “Ed,” rather than “Dr. Babinski.” I do not hold a doctorate only a bachelorʼs in biology.

  2. I am not an “atheist.” I am a former born again Christian who experienced what some call “charismatic/Pentecostal” phenomena, such as the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and “speaking in tongues,” see here. As a Christian I was very interested in apologetics and a big fan of the Inklings (C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, Tolkien), George MacDonald, G. K. Chesterton, Francis Schaeffer, InterVarsity Press authors who wrote works on apologetics, and, Josh McDowell. After leaving the fold I was invited to reply to McDowellʼs claim that the Christian experience was “unique,” and did so here. Today, I am an agnostic who hopes for an afterlife (that is, if a God or some sort of cosmic consciousness exists).

    I edited a book, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, click here, that includes testimonies of people who left conservative Christianity for more moderate pastures, or liberal pastures, or who became adherents of other religions, or agnostics, or atheists. I also wrote a chapter on “The Cosmology of the Bible,” click here, and click here to read some of the replies the chapter received, as well as counter-replies by my atheist friend Ben.


Ed Babinski (circa 1995)

Randal, Your Comments to Me From Your Blog Appear Below, Followed by My Responses Which Are Indented

Ed, youʼre a great story teller. Your Achillesʼ heal is in moving from story telling to formal argument. How do you move from “This is the ‘natural history’ of human origins and the human place in the universe” to “Therefore, there is no God”?

Randal, Itʼs “heel,” not “heal.” And your own Achilleʼs heel consists in missing my point that stories raise questions, and questions precede formal arguments. Nor do formal arguments have any advantage over informal ones as told in stories, not when it comes to the crucial matter of basic intuitions--the same basic intuitions that constitute the demarcation lines where even formal arguments either convince or fail to do so.

I did not declare, “There is no God.” Nor is there any need to do so. My point was that before any debate begins there are points about the cosmos we may agree on, points based on scientific investigation, points that are unsettling and that even make a Divine Tinkerer Hypotheses appear as likely as a Divine Designer Hypothesis.

In fact, knowing the cosmic story and humanityʼs place in it is a necessary precursor to arguing formally about it. I would like us to begin by agreeing that the cosmos has a story, see The Great Story site here, or see The Big History Project here.

Daily life for most involves long stretches of repetitive events that have minimal emotional, philosophical, or religious impact. It is in between such long stretches that the high drama takes place like being born/dying, getting wed/divorced, graduating/dropping out, getting hired/fired, holiday cheers/jeers, sporting event cheers/jeers, days of grand beauty/days of natural disasters, wonderful health/catastrophic illness, or, changes in oneʼs world view. A story can compress into a few hours the peak events in a personʼs life, the lives of a generation, a country, empire, planet or galaxy.

Stories let us see through other peopleʼs eyes the ways humans affect one another and the ways nature affects us. Stories are how we learn about the world and others.

The story I shared with you is that we live in a cosmos where life is in equilibrium with death, in which living organisms arise on infinitesimally small quaking planets that orbit stars that emit dangerous solar flares, all of which lay in the asteroid-strewn and radiation-filled vacuum of space. And life arises at the expense of high mortality rates of the young per each generation, such as the enormous percentages of dying zygotes and dying young of all species, not to mention mass extinction events. See my comments here on mortality rates, extinction events, and the questions they raise for the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Nor are those the only questions that a study of science raises, there are questions concerning how efficiently and/or beneficently the cosmos was “designed,” click here for examples. Astronomers have mapped out the lifetimes of stars depending on their mass and numerous corroborating stellar observations, and determined that stars are born and die (our own sun is a second-generation star, made partly from the exploded remains of a supernova whose explosion forged the heavier elements found on our planet). And our star, following the lifetime of others of similar size and mass, will one day expand in size to a red giant and burn up the earth long before the cosmos as a whole comes to an end. Though before our sun expands to become a red giant the Andromeda galaxy is due to collide with our own Milky Way galaxy since they are on a collision course -- but Iʼm speaking about a billion years from now. (Speaking of which “heat death” is no longer the only option as to how the cosmos will end, see here -- the leading hypothesis is the Big Rip in which time and space continue to expand at the current rate of measured acceleration till they rip apart at the edges like a balloon pumped with too much air or a Hippo leaping into a pair of size 12 khakis.

Scientific knowledge in areas as diverse as physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology and biology continues to expand like the surface area of a balloon being pumped each year with greater knowledge and inter-disciplinary research is common. But is that what we see in the religious world where adherents of rival religions, denominations, sects, and offshoots abound? Even focusing on Christianity alone, do Christians exhibit as much unity throughout their history as one might expect given the list of divine advantages that they claim they alone possess? Christians claim they possess

  1. the worldʼs only truly divinely inspired writings,
  2. the Holy Spirit guiding them into truth, and,
  3. the personal gift of special divine grace.

Scientists make no claim to such supernatural advantages. But Christians do claim such advantages, yet Christianity consists of divisions too numerous to mention and Christians remain the greatest debunkers of the views of other Christians, including todayʼs rival interpretations of the authority of the Bible, rival views concerning a wide range of theological questions and divisions still unsettled, rival views of spiritual or sacramental authority, sanctification, purity, divine commands and laws. To see some recent examples in print click here. As someone told me, “The ‘no-true-Christian-would-do-or-believe-XYZ” game is one of the more popular among, well, Christians.”

Put another way, religious believers remain convinced on the basis of

  1. personal or internal experiences that are not shared by (or remain invisible to) those of other religions, and,

  2. holy doctrines, dogmas and sacraments that appear unfalsifiably true to the religious believer but not shared by those of other religions. Hence, in religion, “Blessed are those who did not see, yet believe”. But that doesnʼt do much for people of other religions who believe in theirʼs without seeing, and it does even less for people with questions. The cosmic questions are obvious, while questions pertaining to the diversity and rivalries of religions raise yet more questions and add more confusion. Nor do I have to claim that everyoneʼs personal or internal religious experiences are false in order to ask, How can God expect me/us/everyone to know what to make of the diversity of religious beliefs and stories? We are presented with a mixed bag of evidence here as well as in the case of what we see in the cosmos. But letʼs look at some personal experiences below to illustrate what I mean.

  1. Amazing healings. (Craig S. Keenerʼs book on Miracles is top heavy with tales of Protestants and Pentecostals who say they have been miraculously healed, though it appears light on stories from Catholics [Marian and saintsʼ miracles], Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Native Americans, New Agers, Wiccans, Scientologists, Tribalists or Aborigines. It also does not discuss cases of spontaneous remission from terminal cancers that happen on a statistical basis, see here. Or, herbal and nutritional supplements claimed by some to be involved in their remissions. Yes people tell stories that involve amazing healings. One such tale comes out of Cambodia concerning a three-year-old healer whom multitudes are flocking to see. But what does this demonstrate concerning the truth of any one religion? And why are there no cases of a limb being regrown in Keenerʼs book though he has scoured the literature worldwide? So what does God expect us to believe?

  2. Amazing, astonishing coincidences. Do they point in the direction of one religion being true? See here, here, here, here, here, here, and lastly see, This Is My Lucky Day, a video featuring jaw-dropping scenes in the lives of people walking or driving who are very nearly killed, and in the final scene some bank robbers in their escape vehicle are literally surrounded when several police vehicles arrive, but the police donʼt realize they have surrounded the robbers, so the police all leave their cars simultaneously and rush into the bank together, leaving the police cars empty, so the robbers simply drive off!) Yes, there are amazing coincidences. Certainly Iʼd expect Christians to have them too, not just bank robbers. And see the other cases above! The trouble is interpreting the full width and breath of such data. Or as someone once said, the basis of all superstition is recalling all the hits that affected you (or your beliefs) the most, and forgetting all the misses and near hits everyone is subject to in real life each day.

  3. And what to make of UFO sightings, including first person tales of abductions or contacts with aliens? A college professor and his son had a long experience they wrote about in detailed form. Thereʼs annual conferences concerning the latest UFO evidence and contact stories. Thereʼs generals who have made pro-UFO statements. Thereʼs video footage and first-person testimonies of sightings from around the world. What about tales of ghostly apparitions that range from minor to major sightings, and benign to frightening stories? What about stories people recount of seeing beings of light, angels, demons, deities other than the Christian variety, or even those who say they saw the sun come down out of the sky and dance beside them (I know a Catholic couple who told me first hand that they experienced this along with other Catholic travelers on a Marian pilgrimage). What does “God” expect us to make of such stories?

  4. Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and/or Out of Body Experiences (OBEs), see here. NDEs have been experienced by people of all religions or none. Atheists experience NDEs as often as other groups, percentage-wise, see here. (Though people of all groups whose heart are restarted usually say that they recall nothing, just as in dreamless sleep. What is one to make of that? Is God squandering a possible opportunity to reach more people?)

The majority of NDEs (and of course, OBEs) involve leaving oneʼs body, hovering for a while then returning again. NDEs in which people go to another realm and actually meet a Being of light, are rarer, and the Being of light is most often interpreted as another human who had gone on before, or a deceased loving relative, rather than a specific religious figure. Also, NDEs most often lessen a personʼs fear of death.

The rarest NDEs involve long memorable excursions in other realms. Sometimes Evangelical Christians claim to have experienced such an NDE, and they write a Scripture-packed bestseller about their visits to heaven and/or hell and believe their conservative religious interpretations have been vindicated.

Other Evangelical Christians after their NDE have grown convinced that God will include more people in heaven rather than fewer. For instance, see in the case of Mary C. Neal, here. She became convinced that everyone is given a “choice” what to believe not only in this life but also after they have died and seen for themselves the next life.

Sadhu Sundar Singh was raised a member of the Sikh religion in India but converted to Christianity in his teens after hating it at first, but then had a vision of Jesus and became a missionary to Tibet where he suffered persecution and imprisonment, but continued to return there to preach. Reading about him reminds one of the conversion story of Paul in the New Testament. Sundarʼs fame grew in India and he toured Europe as well, but on the way to Tibet for one last missionary trip he was never seen again. He wrote a few small books featuring simple lessons and stories of his journeys. He claimed to have visited a Maharishi who was over 300 years old, and he used to fast for tens of days at a time, during which he experienced OBEs and says he visited heaven and hell, and he wrote about such visits in Visions of the Spiritual World (London: Macmillan, 1926). But he was also a universalist who believed even those in hell would one day be saved, see here.

Howard Storm thought little of religion prior to his experience (which was perhaps an OBE--since no one can verify that his heart stopped that night he was in hospital for a severely bleeding ulcer), but it was such an overpowering experience that he afterwards quit his well paid job as Chair of an Art Dept., attended a seminary and became a Christian minister. His experience began when a trip to a hellish place, then he prayed the only prayer he could remember, “Jesus loves me,” and a Being of light appeared overhead and lifted Howard out of that place. Then he met with other Beings of Light and asked them questions, including “Is there life elsewhere in the cosmos?” (He was shown both humanoid and non-humanoid forms of intelligent life.) And, “Whatʼs the best religion?” (They replied, “Whichever one brings you closest to God.”) I heard two different testimonies he taped concerning his experience, that were recorded over a decade earlier that his book, and perhaps before all of his seminary education had been completed. At that time he made it sound like people raised in other religions might also draw near to God via which ever religion they were most familiar with and that brought them closest, like the view of C.S. Lewisʼ lifelong friend, Don Bede Griffiths, who ran a Christian-Hindu ashram in India for decades. Howard even said at that time that he believed God would make the transition comfortable for each person, altering what they first saw depending on their previous lives and religious beliefs. But after years of preaching, Rev. Howard Storm now seem more enamored with conservative Evangelicalism.

Betty Eadie, whose story happened to become a bestseller, is one of many who felt great love during their journey to the other side, and she does not fear death, her religious beliefs were also transformed in the process.

Dannion Brinkley, another whose story happened to become a bestseller, experienced a lengthy afterlife excursion that convinced him to become spiritual but not religious. Afterwards he spent time comforting people who were dying from terminal illnesses, and heʼs worked with Dr. Raymond Moody (the bestselling author of, Life after Life) at Moodyʼs institute.

As already mentioned, NDEs are experienced by people of other religions. Mormons experience as high a number as others, but there is no rush by such people to leave Mormonism and convert to Evangelical Protestantism. One Buddhist in Thailand says he met a talking turtle that was divine. Another fellow was revived from a major heart attack by an Evangelical Christian cardiologist who gave the paddles once last time after praying, but while on the other side he didnʼt meet angels or Jesus or God, but met “Bob” who comforted him. One famous atheist philosopher, A. J. Ayers, had an NDE in which he says, here, that he met “two creatures who had been put in charge of space. These ministers periodically inspected space and had recently carried out such an inspection. They had, however, failed to do their work properly, with the result that space, like a badly fitting jigsaw puzzle, was slightly out of joint. A further consequence was that the laws of nature had ceased to function as they should.” Pretty odd! Dannion Brinkley, previously mentioned, says he spoke with some Beings of light who admitted they had failed in their mission. Apparently World War 1 was a plan concocted by heaven to end all wars, but, they admitted sorrowfully, the plan failed (Iʼm recalling that last bit from memory.)

During an NDE some have seen and heard crazy looking beings and other things that do not harmonize well with any particular religion, see here. See also this paper that raises questions concerning NDEs from a non-supernatural perspective. And this paper as well, by Neuroscientist, Sam Harris.

My point is that religions, denominations, holy books and their rival interpretations are just as diverse and confusing as the array of weird and amazing tales people tell about their first hand experiences. So if one were to take into account the sum total of evidence one might have to conclude that God mumbles, or that God chooses to mumble for some “reason” that is just as incoherent to us as a genuine mumble might be.


To Continue with What Randal Said & My Further Response, Indented Beneath It.

Take Carl Saganʼs famous statement that the cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be. That goes beyond what is “universally apparent” too. Now some cosmologists speak of multiple universes as a way of explaining apparent cosmic fine-tuning. And by doing so they (1) falsify Saganʼs claim even as they (2) embrace premises about things not universally apparent.

So hereʼs what Iʼd like you to do Ed. Donʼt just tell a story for me. Take the next step to articulate your worldview based on your story. Go out on a limb. Explain to us how you think this natural history of human origins and the human place in the universe that youʼve described entails a set of claims like “Therefore, there is no God” and “Therefore, human beings cease to exist when they die” and “Therefore, Christianity is false” and whatever else.

I did not say “the cosmos is all that ever was or will be.” Nor must I get you to say it. The questions Iʼve raised above are ones that raise themselves.

Nor did I claim “Christianity is false.” I said letʼs begin with knowledge we both have access to, such as knowledge about the cosmos, and that life and death are at best in equilibrium in it, as well as the evidence of inefficient designs, and evidence that the vast majority of the cosmos is deadly to life, which only arises on infinitesimally small quaking planetoids near flame-stars, as well as noting the lack of clear evidence of beneficence. See examples by clicking here. Instead we observe a cosmos that is a mixed bag in which life may arise, but dies in large numbers each generation, even in mass extinction events. Thatʼs the kind of evidence thatʼs visible to both of us. And I added that this evidence could be explained just as well by the existence of a Divine Tinkerer rather than a Divine Designer.

I suggested we also look at first hand stories from around the world by people who claim to have experienced amazing healings, coincidences, visions, NDEs. But again we see a mixed bag. I added that Christians were the greatest debunkers of each otherʼs views, and wondered about that in light of the fact that Christians claim they have the worldʼs most inspired book, and the Holy Spirit to lead them into truth, and Godʼs grace at work in their lives, advantages that they claim believers of no other religions have. So the question remains, what does God expect us to believe in lieu of such a mixed bag of testimonies from the cosmos and other people, and religious disagreements?


Randalʼs Last Paragraph & My Response in the Indented Paragraph Beneath It

Once youʼve done that we will no longer have my apple compared to your orange. Instead we will have two apples that can be compared for their respective strengths and weaknesses. And in particular we will be able to see where you follow me, and Sagan, and cosmologists who endorse multiple universes, in going beyond “things not universally apparent” in the articulation of your worldview.

I do not need to have an orange to compare to your apple. I was pointing out that evidence from the cosmos, as well as from the variety and diversity of personal stories, as well as the fact that Christians claim to have the greatest supernatural advantages but have been constantly debunking each otherʼs views since Christianity began (and it doesnʼt look like itʼs going to get any better since the arrival of freedom of belief and inquiry), presents us with a mixed bag. And, How can God expect me/us/everyone to know what to make of such a mixed bag?

The Religious Right

The Religious Right

Religion is a queer thing. By itself, itʼs all right. But sprinkle a little politics into it and dynamite is bran flour compared with it.

Finley Peter Dunneʼs “Mr. Dooley”


Notice any difference between the ancient Hebrewʼs “First Commandment” and our First Amendment? According to the “First Commandment” in the Bible “ye shall have no other gods before me” under penalty of death. While our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.

E.T.B.


The Christian Right do not call upon their faith to certify their politics as much as they call for a country that certifies their faith. Fundamentalism really cannot help itself—it is absolutist and can compromise with nothing, not even democracy. It is not surprising that immediately after the Islamic fundamentalist attack on the World Trade Centerʼs twin towers and the Pentagon, two prominent Christian fundamentalists (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson) were reported to have accounted it a justifiable punishment by God for our secularism. In thus honoring the foreign killers of almost 3,000 Americans as agents of Godʼs justice, they established their blood brotherhood with the principle of righteous warfare in the name of all that is holy, and gave their pledge of allegiance to the theocratic ideal of government of whatever sacred text.

E. L. Doctorow, Reporting the Universe (Harvard)


Iʼm not convinced that faith can move mountains, but Iʼve seen what it can do to skyscrapers.

William H. Gascoyne, “One-liners,” Op/Ed section, San Jose Mercury, Jan. 20, 2004


The Religious Right in Iraq

In post-Saddam Iraq many children are being educated in private Islamic fundamentalist schools where they learn to memorize the Koran, rather than being prepared for a world of complex diverse knowledge and higher paying jobs. Therefore, such schools breed further misunderstandings between world cultures, as well as perpetuate poverty, which in turn perpetuates anger. Moreover, as pointed out by professor W. Andrew Terrill (professor at the Army War Collegeʼs Strategic Studies Institute, and the top expert on Iraq there), “I donʼt think that you can kill the insurgency in Iraq. If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation. Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators. Thereʼs talk of angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating wonderful scents.”

W. Andrew Terrill, [Cited by Sidney Blumenthal, sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com, “Far graver than Vietnam,” The Guardian, Thursday September 16, 2004]


Fundamentalist Christian Leader, Pat Robertson, Flip Flops on the Necessity of “Separation of Church & State” Depending on the The Country

If the United States tries nation building [in Iraq], itʼs got to [have] at the very top of its agenda a separation of church and state…Itʼs… imperative to set up a constitution and safeguards that say we will maintain a secular state.

— Pat Robertson, 700 Club broadcast, March 17, 2003 (cited in a March 18th press release from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State)

We have had a lie foisted on us that there is something in the Constitution [of the U.S.] called separation of church and state.

— Pat Robertson, speech at the Christian Coalition “Road to Victory” Conference Oct. 12, 2002 (cited in a March 18th press release from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State)


President Bush is worried that Iraq is going to be overrun by religious fundamentalists. Hey, if itʼs O.K. for the Republican party, itʼs good enough for Iraq.

Jay Leno, The Tonight Show


We donʼt want the establishment of a state religion here, as in Saudi Arabia, where the religious police are permitted to whip with sticks any woman not modestly attired. There arenʼt enough trees in North America for the necessary sticks. Youʼd have to level Yellowstone just to deal with [insert name of hot female rock star].

James Lileks, “Bow Wow,” Fresh Lies


Guess Which Nationʼs Constitution Explicitly Excludes Mention of “God”

America is the first and only country to adopt a Constitution that specifically excludes all reference to a higher power. I say “specifically” because those meeting at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia considered and rejected any such reference. [They also considered and rejected whether or not to open their meetings with public prayer.—E.T.B.] Many bishops and preachers of the time warned that God would punish such decisions, but many were the preachers who said the same about the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, which did no more than state that no citizen could be obliged to pay for the upkeep of a church in which he did not believe.

Christopher Hitchens, “Believe It or Not: Making a Patriotic Case for those of Little Faith,” a review of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby, in the Book World section of the Washington Post, April 25, 2004 [slight editing and one added sentence by E.T.B.]


Did Jesus Pursue the Same Goals as Todayʼs Religious Right Leaders?

Was Jesus For Or Against the Separation of Church and State?

Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesarʼs, and unto God the things that are Godʼs.”

- Matthew 22:21

Was Jesus For Or Against Public Prayer?
Jesus said, “And when thou pray, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father who sees in secret shall reward thee openly.”
- Matthew 6:5-6

Did Jesus Rail Against Abortion or Infanticide?
Jesus didnʼt mention either topic, though the Hellenistic world not only employed abortifacents, but also abandoned unwanted newborns, usually females, to die (or be picked up by anyone who wished to raise the newborn as their slave).

So What Did Jesus Rail Against?
Jesus railed primarily against two things: 1) “the rich,” and, 2) overly pious, legalistic, self-righteous religious “hypocrites.” Those were his two priorities when it came to a good railing.

Jesus does not sound like the kind of person todayʼs Religious Right would let lead them.

E.T.B.


What If Jesus Ran For President?

Washington, D.C.—Jesus Christ formally declared himself a contender for the Republican presidential nomination today, amid growing controversy over his purported “anti-family” views.

Mr. Christʼs principal rivals for the GOP nomination were quick to cite an occasion reported in Luke 9:60, where Mr. Christ refused to allow one of his campaign volunteers time off to bury his father. One senator added that the next two verses of that same chapter show that Mr. Christ does not even permit his volunteers to so much as say goodbye to their families when they join his campaign. “Thatʼs just plumb shameful,” deplored the senator.

Leaders of the religious right were even more critical of Mr. Christʼs stand on family issues. The head of the Christian Coalition quoted Matthew 10:35-36—verses, he insisted, that revealed Mr. Christʼs “secret plan” to destroy the traditional family: “For I am come to set a man at variance with his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a manʼs foes shall be they of his own household.” The head of the Christian Coalition added, “What further proof do we need that Mr. Christ is the enemy of all that is good and wholesome in American family life? Even the most extreme elements of the homosexual lobby havenʼt proposed anything as subversive as this!”

Responding to rumors that Mr. Christ had sought to address a mass meeting of the male Christian organization known as “The Promise Keepers,” and had been turned away, the organizationʼs founder said that Mr. Christʼs appearance at the Promise Keeperʼs rally would be “inappropriate,” given the organizationʼs avowed purpose of helping men become better husbands and fathers. Mr. McCartney said it is common knowledge that Mr. Christ is over thirty years of age, still unmarried, hints at the ideal of becoming “a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 19:12), and leads a rootless, itinerant lifestyle. Furthermore, he noted, Mr. Christ encourages his married followers to leave their families behind when they come to work for him.

Hal Gordon, article in The Texas Triangle, Dec. 1, 1996


If Jesus Ran For President, How Would His Political Opponents Counter His Statements?

Jesus: “Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.”
COUNTER: Jesus favors more government handouts for welfare cheats.

Jesus: “Judge not, that you be not judged.”
COUNTER: Jesus is soft on crime.

Jesus: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesarʼs.”
COUNTER: Jesus will raise your taxes.

Jesus: “Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other.”
COUNTER: Can we trust Jesus to fight the War on Terror?

Jesus—Wrong on social services. Wrong on crime. Wrong on defense. Wrong for America.

Mad magazine


A Lesson From the Christianized Rome Empire

After Christian Emperors assumed the leadership of Rome and began throwing enormous quantities of state money and support at Christianity, many concrete “worldly” problems were no longer treated as such, but began being blamed on “Satan,” while the finest minds of the Empire were reduced to brooding over Biblical minutia and spiritual problems, from “sniffing out heresies” to “preserving oneʼs virginity.”

E.T.B.


Biblical Ethical Relativism

In the Bible you cannot find any verses that say polygamy, concubinage, slavery(*) or mass murder are always and everywhere “sins.” In fact, according to the Bible such practices are perfectly acceptable to “God,” even praiseworthy—depending on the circumstances.

(*)Male and female non-Israelite slaves, and also female Israelite slaves, were not offered release during “Jubilee.” And any children that resulted from a master setting up two slaves as a couple, remained the masterʼs.

E.T.B.


Is More Christianity “The Answer” To A Nationʼs Woes?

The percentage of the U.S. population that is in prison is the highest percentage for any nation on earth. One child in five grows up in poverty in the U.S. (a conservative estimate). So we do not appear overly “blessed” when compared with nations that have lower crime rates, less poverty, and far fewer “Christians” than we do. Yet the U.S. spends more money on weapons of mass destruction than all other nations combined. Which makes you wonder, how exactly do those other nations, with fewer Christians, less Bible reading and less churchgoing, achieve lower crime rates, less poverty, lower rates of unplanned pregnancies, and higher educational test results?

Maybe “more Christianity” isnʼt necessarily “the answer” to a nationʼs woes?

E.T.B.


Do We Want A Nation “Blessed” By God?

Numerous Christian organizations are eager for America to seek the “blessings of God.” But have they studied what happened to that other nation “blessed by God,” the nation of Israel? Hmmm, letʼs see…According to the Bible, the God of Israel tried to kill Moses (and failed); struck dead two sons of Aaron; commanded “brother to kill brother” leading to the deaths of 3,000 Israelites (right after He gave them the commandment, “Do not kill”); opened up the earth and buried alive “wives, sons and little children;” sent a fire that consumed 148 Levite princes; cursed his people to wander in the desert for forty years and eat 40,000 meals of quail and “manna” (talk about a monotonously torturous diet—and when they complained about it, God killed 3,000 Israelites with a plague); had a man put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath; denied Moses and Aaron entrance into the “promised land” because Moses struck a rock twice with his staff instead of talking to the rock; delivered to his people a “promised land” that was parched, bordered by desert, and a corridor for passing conquering armies; sent fiery serpents among Israel, killing many; wanted to kill every Israelite and start over with Moses and his family (but Moses talked God out of that plan); drove the first king of Israel to suicide; killed someone who tried to steady a teetering ark of the covenant; murdered king Davidʼs innocent child; sent plagues and famines upon his people that killed men, women and children; ordered the execution of 42 children of the king of Judah; “smote all Israel” killing half a million men of Israel in a civil war between Israel and Judah; “delivered into the hand of the king of Israel” 120,000 Judeans massacred in one day along with 200,000 Jewish women and children; gave Satan the power to kill Jobʼs children and servants (in order to win a bet); let the Babylonians conquer the holy city of Jerusalem, and then the Greek forces of Alexander the Great, followed by the Romans; and finally left the Jews homeless and persecuted by Christians and Moslems for nearly 2000 years. Furthermore, the large number of laws in the Hebrew Bible concerning the treatment of lepers and those with sores demonstrates that the Israelites were far from being blessed with unparalleled good health. And archeological evidence indicates that in ancient Israel the infant mortality rate was as high as fifty percent.

So, knowing everything that happened to that nation “blessed by God,” Iʼve got to ask the Religious Right WHAT THE #%$?! ARE THEY THINKING?

E.T.B. [See the Bible for all of the cases mentioned above, except for the archeological evidence concerning ancient Israelʼs infant mortality rate. For the latter see, Drorah OʼDonnell Setel, “Abortion,” The Oxford Guide to Ideas & Issues of the Bible, ed. by Bruce Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford University Press, 2001)]


Another Nation That Invoked “Godʼs Blessing”: The South

After the states of the South seceded from the Northern states in the U.S., the Confederacy drew up its own separate Constitution and made sure it contained an invocation to God: “We, the people…invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God…”

Learning what the South had done, a few legislators in the North drafted bills to have a Divine invocation added to the Constitution in the North, but all such bills were voted down. To this day (2004), the U.S. Constitution does not mention “God” nor invoke “Godʼs favor and guidance.”

E.T.B. (See The Confederate Constitutions, compiled by Charles Robert Lee, Jr.)


Yet Another Nation That Invoked “Godʼs Blessing”: Nazi Germany

Each belt buckle that German soldiers wore had embossed upon it “Gott Mit Uns” (“God Is with Us”). Over the door of the courthouse in the Palace of Justice complex in Nuremberg were engraved the Ten Commandments.

Fredrick R. Abrams, M.D., in the foreword to Vivien Spitzʼs Doctors from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans


“Forced Religion Stinks in Godʼs Nostrils”

The “godly and zealous” Roger Williams was a prime example of an extreme separatist. He arrived in Massachusetts in 1631 and was elected minister of the church in Salem in 1635. But his opposition to the alliance of church and civil government turned both ministers and magistrates of the colony against him. He insisted that government magistrates should have no voice in spiritual matters and that “forced religion stinks in Godʼs nostrils.” He also advanced the radical idea that it was “a national sin” for anyone, including the king, to take possession of any American land without buying it from the Indians. For these teachings he was banished by the General Court. Williams departed Massachusetts in January 1636, traveling south to the head of Narragansett Bay. There he worked out mutually acceptable arrangements with the local Indians and founded the town of Providence. In 1644, after obtaining a charter from Parliament, he established the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. The government was relatively democratic, all religions were tolerated, and church and state were rigidly separated. Whatever Williamsʼs temperamental excesses, he was more than ready to practice what he preached when given the opportunity.

Dr. Priestʼs Magical History Tour, AP U.S. History, On-line History Textbook, Chapter One, Europe Discovers America


I am in favor of the separation of church and state. I figure, either of those institutions screws you up so much on its own, put them together, you got certain death.

George Carlin, Saturday Night Live, 1984

Brian Jay Stanley Aphorisms and Paradoxes

Paradoxes

Brian Jay Stanley is a student of humanity and the cosmos. His paradoxical aphorisms are both insightful and delightful, comparing favorably, in my opinion, to those of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Logan Pearsall Smith, Eric Hoffer, E. M. Cioran, or various poets featured on this blog. Brianʼs latest piece, On Being Nothing, was published in the New York Times and generated over 240 comments.

Why Youth Feels Immortal

We seldom catch the transition from sleeping to waking. Gently we dawn into consciousness, but because so gently, we do not notice the metamorphosis until itʼs complete, when we discover ourselves lying fully awake in our bed. It is like the change into life itself. Having clambered up the steps of infantile cognizance, one day in childhood it first occurs to us that we exist, already many years after the fact. Looking back for our beginning, the past is a fog, and we find we cannot remember a time when we did not exist. No wonder in youth we feel immortal. How could we die when it seems we have always lived?


Atheism and Computers

There is an eeriness in learning computer science, the eeriness of discovering the empty soul of a machine beneath the monitorʼs meaningful display. Behind the colorful banners, cartoonlike icons, and smart, responsive buttons on our screens are cryptic lines of codes and commands. Strange as they are, these hidden strings of characters are only the programmerʼs, not the computerʼs, language. The computerʼs only language is an endless run-on sentence of ones and zeroes. Its silicon cerebrum is a vast array of tiny electrical switches, each charged or chargeless. The changing order of charges translates, miraculously but mindlessly, into all the streaming wonders of words and colors we perceive.

So too is the atheistʼs universe. Pry behind the rich graphics flashing across the screen of being, and you arrive at the imbecilic machinery of it all, electrons flowing through the circuit boards of the stars, motors whirring on the hard drives of our bodies. Beneath the intelligible there is only the unintelligent, a blank stare behind beautiful eyes, muteness behind the music.


Theology of the Empty Universe

Theologically, outer space presents a riddle. Why did God leave creation so uncreated? The vast empty regions separating the faint stars suggests not so much creation from nothing, but creation of nothing—the calling into being of nonbeing. God is said to have made the world through his wordʼs omnipotence, but I have never heard explained why the great phrase of Genesis, “Let there be light!” should have come to so little fruition.

Many past philosophers taught that the cosmos is a thought in the mind of God. If so, how strangely blank is the all-encompassing brain! Is the divine mind still in infancy, formed but not yet filled? Conversely, has some tremendous disease eaten away the aging network of neurons until we alone are left, a last synapse firing off in the dying omniscience?


The Missionaryʼs God

If, as missionaries believe, people must hear the true religion or be damned, it is poorly planned that God sets tribes in the middle of jungles where they will certainly never hear it, and then, as if scrambling to correct this oversight, commissions the chosen to search through the vines and provide them the code to heaven God forgot to. Missionaries are like Godʼs software patch to fix a faulty program.


Modern Astronomy is Behind the Times

The light of stars must travel so far and takes so long to reach us that we see the cosmos not as it is, but as it was eons ago when the light now arriving first left its source. Thus, we have no idea what is happening out there right now. All astronomical discoveries are stale reportage. Stars die as scientists witness their birth. For all we know, doomsday has already come to the far side of space, and it will be ten billion years before news of it crosses the wires. We are like generals in old wars, who had to wait for updates to travel hundreds of miles by courier to army headquarters. Often, by the time the message came that the ranks were holding strong, luck had turned and the fort lay in enemy hands.


A Meaningful Career As a Professor of Meaninglessness

A paradox of philosophy is that, having originated as the pursuit of knowledge, it has mainly led to skepticism. Aristotle sought rational meaning in nature and humanity, but philosophers since him have steadily given up, culminating in the twentieth-century existentialists who deny the meaning of life, and deconstructionists who deny any meanings beyond the mere wizardry of words.

Yet what do philosophers accomplish by their denials of meaning? They gain for themselves professorship and authorship; they define an idea they can embrace and base their life upon.

Humans are so needful of meaning, we find it even through denying it.


The Cosmos of Thought

Stargazing is a boring hobby unless one supplements gazing with thinking. Visually, the night sky is among natureʼs plainest paintings—a black canvas speckled with dim white dots. Its most interesting dimension is its depth, a dimension wholly undetectable to mere sight. No wonder the ancients, having only eyes for instruments, conceived of a rotating dome embedded with fixed lights, a short distance above earth.

Only a mind to match the sky can make the stars worth looking at. If outer space inspires us, it is because we soar through the inner infinity of imagination.


Biography

Brian Jay Stanley is an essayist and software developer in Asheville, North Carolina. His personal philosophical essays have been published or are forthcoming in The Antioch Review, North American Review, The Hudson Review, The Sun, Pleiades, The Dalhousie Review, The Laurel Review, Connecticut Review, and other magazines. They were selected as notable essays in The Best American Essays in 2006, 2010, and 2011, and have been anthologized in America Now (9th ed.), from Bedford/St. Martinʼs Press. He received a masterʼs degree in library and information science from the University of Illinois and a masterʼs degree in theology from Duke University.

The Rainbow in the Clouds: An Anger Management Device

Rainbow

“The Rainbow in the Cloud: An Anger-Management Device,” is an actual article in The Journal of Religion (Oct. 2009) by Yair Lorberbaum.

The article begins:

One of the striking attributes ascribed to God in the Bible, particularly in the Pentateuch, is that of jealousy (“For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God”; Exod. 20:5). “Jealous” (in Hebrew: qana) even serves as one of His names (“For the Lord, jealous is His name. He is a jealous God”; Exod. 34:14). It is well known that in the Bible, a name signifies something of the essence of the one who bears it. Repeatedly, we find warnings not to arouse the wrath of God, alongside descriptions of various incidents that culminate in His furious anger, followed by futile attempts to appease Him. It is no accident that there are numerous terms used for Godʼs anger in the Bible … Godʼs jealousy has many aspects, and the grappling with it—of the prophets, of His people, and first and foremost of God Himself–assumes different forms. Many sections of the Bible, and particularly of the Pentateuch, may thus be read as a history of the Divine fury and the means of restraining it. In this article, I wish to read the first chapters of the book of Genesis, or, more precisely, the narratives of the Creation (Genesis 1-2) and of the Flood (Genesis 6-9), as a saga at whose focus God learns, through great effort, to control and restrain His outbursts of fury.

and ends:

In the final analysis, the jealous God requires some means to help Him to remember His covenant and to restrain Himself. The situation of humankind after the Flood, in terms of the danger of total destruction in the future, has, it is true, improved: God has made a covenant and created the mechanism of the rainbow to stop Himself. But precisely because of the nature of the Divine emotion that has been uncovered in this narrative, there is no assurance that the promise will not be violated. For, as we said, God Himself fears that He will not be able to stand up to it and thus creates a mechanism of self-control.


A Bit of Poetry That Seems To Fit the Discussion

Most Zealots are eager to tell us
That their God is bad-tempered and jealous.
They go on for hours
Describing His powers
With a zeal thatʼs excessively zealous.

R. S. Gwynn (a brief selection from Sects from A to Z)

Also click on this discussion of The Theological World View of the Ancient Israelites.

6 Reasons Why More Biologists Are Not Pro-I.D. (Intelligent Design)

Biologists as Intelligent Design Advocates
  1. If the genome of each organism is “intelligently designed” to function so well, then why do only a TINY percentage of organisms from each generation of each species survive long enough to pass along that genome? It doesnʼt sound like the genome is really maintaining itself all that well. Not when its mere survival depends on so much death taking place in an endless stream.

    Thatʼs similar to what Darwin asked after reading Malthus on the population growth of species. If I may paraphrase in a loose fashion some of Malthusʼs and Darwinʼs observations using modern data:

    A single bacterial cell that divides every twenty minutes would multiply to a mass four thousand times greater than the earthʼs in just two days if none died. (Sidenote: microbes are the most adaptable of organisms, they can be found in soil, in the ocean, in clouds, on the outside and insides of all other animals, even extremophile bacteria that live in some of the hottest deepest regions on earth, and, bacteria can survive outer space better than other organisms. So maybe evolution is true after all, since the organisms with the highest rates of reproduction and death also “just happen to be” the most adaptable).

    About one hundred million sperm cells are found in each cubic centimeter of human ejaculate, and they all die but one. Equally bountiful numbers of pollen and seeds in the world of seed-bearing plants simply perish.

    Even after insemination and fertilization (the fertilized egg cell is called a zygote) a large percent of zygotes of all species do not survive. The pro-lifer, Dr. John Collins Harvey, admits, “Products of conception [often] die at the zygote, morula, or blastocyst stage. They never reach the implant stage but are discharged in the menstrual flow of the next period. It is estimated that [this] occurs in more than 50 percent of [human] conceptions. In such occurrences, a woman may never even know that she has been pregnant.” [“Distinctly Human,” Commonweal, Feb. 8, 2002] And a fairly high percentage (20-30% or more?) of people born as single individuals used to be twins in the womb but one of them was reabsorbed into the womb, or into the other twin (called, “vanishing twin syndrome,” noted since the advent of sonograms). So, regardless of whether you believe genomes were “designed” with extreme care by a super-intelligent Being, who “loves all the little zygotes in the world,” apparently that love does not include giving them all a whole and healthy start in life.

    A single oyster, left to its own devices, produces more than one-hundred-twenty-five million eggs in a season. Thatʼs more than enough oysters, if none died in eight years, [10 to the 89th power number of oysters] to crowd the water out of the oceans and make it cover the earth. So the number of oysters that perish from the egg-state onward is immense.

    If all the eggs from one mother housefly lived, she would produce more than five trillion offspring in just one season. But countless flies perish from the egg-state onward.

    A sunfish sometimes lays three hundred million eggs. But countless sunfish perish from the egg-state onward.

    A female sea turtle lays a hundred or more eggs. But countless turtles perish from the egg-state onward.

    To sum up: There are massive die offs of sperm and zygotes in the animal world (as well as massive die offs of pollen and seeds in the world of seed-bearing plants). Add to that the enormous death toll of the young of all species. For instance, the French naturalist, Buffon, who wrote during the middle of the eighteenth century noted that “half of all children born never lived to reach the age of 8 years old.” The young of all species suffer great losses due to illnesses, viruses, bacterial infections, parasites, as well as mental, muscular, or sensory deficiencies. So the life of every living thing consists of countless numbers of hurdles they must leap over from the egg-stage onward, viz. natural selection. The last hurdle to leap over is to reach sexual maturity, mate and conceive young but many members of each species do not conceive, or conceive far fewer than certain rival members of their own species.

    In other words, the genome is so “intelligently designed” it requires the production of countless eggs and young to sustain it, the vast majority of which perish—kind of like having to toss an endless stream of children into the flames just to keep the “intelligently designed” genome burning. Or to put it in the form of a question:

    Were our genomes ‘designed,’ knowing it would take endless rounds of massive death merely to Sustain them? Or are mutations and natural selection part of an evolutionary process that does more than simply sustain each species?

  2. And speaking of “sustaining” genomes …

    If a Designer took great care and intelligence in the design of each genome, primping and preening them over eons of time, until each family, order, genus or species was “just right,” then why mass extinction events?

    There have been five major extinction events over geologic time, along with more localized less massive events, as well as individual extinctions of countless species drawn out over time. Doesnʼt that constitute evidence that the Designer was shaking their Etch A Sketch like some less than proficient human artist who was trying to sketch a picture of something they had in mind, but they had to erase large portions of the sketch multiple times because they lacked the ABILITY to fully sketch the image they had in their mind? Either that, or, during the process of sketching (like the process of screenwriting), they continued to come up with different ways to shape the face (or the plot) and was playing around with them in the mind as well as on paper? Thatʼs the kind of Designer, or rather, Tinkerer, one might propose based on the actual evidence from the fossil record.

    Lastly, even IF a Designer was carefully orchestrating genetic changes—mutating old genes and inserting new ones over eons of time—those changes have to be looked after. That means it takes more than just subtle genetic manipulation but additional planning and intervention on the part of such a piece-meal Designer who has to continue to intervene so that the organisms carrying the new genome are not overtaken by natural counter-mutations, birthing difficulties, pathogens, parasites, predators, tsunamis, so that the organism as a whole does not trip over any accidental hurdles that might diminish the chances of the newly installed genes or other genetic materials from being passed along — so that the freshly mutated organism will survive and also produce more offspring than the rest of its peers. Therefore the Designer has to make the eyes of hungry owls look the other way if a mouse with some new genes is scurrying past that hungry owl and toward the den of a potential mate. The Designer has to constantly keep watch and intervene in ways too numerous to mention, including keeping watch over natural mutagens floating around inside the germ cells of males and females of that species, brushing away such natural mutagens from crucial regions of the genome that the Designer has just altered, or brushing them away from other parts of the genome that the Designer has not even touched, because if such mutagens did come into contact with such regions it might still reduce that animalʼs chances of passing along the fresh new genes the Designer has given it. To mention another example, the Designer would have to deflect cosmic rays if they are about to hit a critical base-pair in the DNA of the male or female germ cell.

    To illustrate some of these questions in the form of a parable:

    Divine Designer or Incessant Tinkerer?

    Once upon a time in a small village there lived a Clock-maker whom the people praised high and low for designing marvelous clocks that kept perfect time, but the people, so full of praise for “the grandest of all Clock-makers,” simply failed to note the fact that the Clock-maker often had to walk into peopleʼs homes where each clock was proudly displayed to move the clockʼs hands a bit faster or slower to ensure it was keeping time. And sometimes he ran round the village incinerating his clocks and any nearby furniture with a flame-thrower.

  3. Stephen Schaffner, statistical geneticist at the Whitehead/MIT Center for Genome Research—points out why he finds the evidence for evolution compelling. Schaffner (who is a Christian) asks:

    Where is the creationist or I.D.ist model that explains the following types of observed genetic data? Such a model should produce estimates of the following measurable genetic data for modern humans:

    1. The minor allele frequency spectrum.

    2. The relationship between minor allele frequency and probability that the minor allele is the same as the chimpanzee base at that site.

    3. The ratio of transition (purine<->purine or pyrimidine<->pyrimidine) polymorphisms to transversion (purine<->pyrimidine) polymmorphisms.

    4. The ratio of polymorphisms at CpG sites to the overall polymorphism rate.

    5. The distance over which significant linkage disequilibrium extends in a chromosome.

    6. The genetic distance (difference in allele frequencies) between African and non-African populations.

    7. The difference between African and non-African populations in the extent of linkage disequilibrium.

    8. The distance over which significant autocorrelation in heterozygosity extends in a chromosome.

    9. The ratio of fixed transition to transversion differences between humans and chimpanzees.

    10. Same as (9), but for CpG sites.

    There are other possible questions, but these are a reasonable starting point, since the quantities in question are all ones that I routinely use evolution to predict or intrepret. If the claim is true that creationists/I.D.ists look at the same data and just interpret it differently, there should be no difficulty in providing the creationist interpretation of these data.(Note that the answers should be derivable by anyone using the same model.)

    Iʼm happy to answer questions about my list (which is deliberately terse — I didnʼt feel like writing a survey of population genetics). Young-earth creationists should have the most trouble meeting my challenge. As you allow more and more time, and more and more evolution, it becomes harder to distinguish special creation from evolution. In the extreme case where all God does is cause a small number of critical mutations in the development of humans, the results will look exactly like evolution (provided the mutations occur in a fairly large population). In that case, of course, you have to wonder why those mutations also couldnʼt have happened on their own, since every other mutation can.

  4. Todd Wood, a Ph.D. prof. of biology at Bryan College (and both a Christian and creationist), admits:

    The genome revolution… presents significant challenges to creationist theory, particularly in the realm of biological similarity…… [creationists] Robinson and Cavanaugh concluded that all extant felids [cats] belong to the same baramin [“kind”] and presumably descended from a single pair of cats on the Ark, but geneticists found distances greater than 5% among felid [cat] Zfy genes and greater than 3% among felid [cat] Zfx genes. Certainly if felid [cat] sequences can vary by that amount, what is to preclude the conclusion that the much lower differences observed between human and chimpanzees genomes indicates that they belong to the same “kind?”… As with the genetic diversity of cats, what is to preclude application of this same argument to chimpanzees and humans with the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with an animal? To put this question another way, how can we maintain that cats share a common ancestor with their genomic differences, and deny that the smaller differences between humans and chimpanzees could not also arise from a common ancestor?… This argument could be significantly amplified from recent findings of genomic studies. For example, geneticists have surveyed 50 olfactory receptor genes [“for smell”] in humans and apes. They found that the open reading frame of 33 of the human genes were interrupted by nonsense codons or deletions, rendering them pseudogenes. Sixteen of these human pseudogenes were also pseudogenes in chimpanzee, and they all shared the exact same substitution or deletion as the human sequence. Eleven of the human pseudogenes were shared by chimpanzee, gorilla, and human and had the exact same substitution or deletion. While common design could be a reasonable first step to explain similarity of functional genes, it is difficult to explain why pseudogenes with the exact same substitutions or deletions would be shared between species that did not share a common ancestor.

    See Toddʼs paper, The Chimpanzee Genome and the Problem of Biological Similarity

    Todd has also stated on his blog:

    Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

  5. Christians at the BIOLOGOS website critique the arguments presented by Intelligent Design advocates, including articles by ex-I.D.ist, professor Dennis Venema, on his move From ID to BIOLOGOS, and on Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information.

And see:

  • An Evolutionary Algorithm Beats Intelligent Design—In the summer of 2006, a different kind of war was waged on the Internet—a war between computer programs written by both evolutionary scientists and by intelligent design (ID) advocates. The war came to a climax in a public math competition in which dozens of humans stepped forward to compete against each other and against genetic (“evolutionary”) computer algorithms. The results were stunning: The official representative of the intelligent design community was outperformed by an evolutionary algorithm, thus learning Orgelʼs Second Law—“Evolution is smarter than you are”–the hard way. In addition, the same IDerʼs attempt to make a genetic algorithm that achieved a specific target without “specification” of that target was publicly exposed as a rudimentary sham. And finally, two pillars of ID theory, “irreducible complexity” and “complex specified information” were shown not to be beyond the capabilities of evolution, contrary to official ID dogma.

  • Information in Biology—is an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Professor of Philosophy by a Harvard professor who provides a useful definition of Shannon Information and biology. The same professor composed “Information and the Argument from Design,” a chapter in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, a work edited by Robert Pennock.

  • Origin of new genes and new information series

  • EvoMath blog entries