Evolution and witches.
The national museum of Kenya has one of the most extensive and important collections of fossils showing the evolution of humans. Much of this is due to the work of paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey.
For instance in 1984 Leakey discovered the most complete skeleton of Homo erectus available. The skeleton is 1.7 million years old. In addition they have skeletal parts of Australopithecus anamensis which is thought to be the first species to walk upright. These are about 4 million years old.
Of course the Bible nuts deny any of this can be true since the earth is only a few thousand years old and evolution didn’t happened. In fact they say it couldn’t happen since the Bible gives a different account of the origins of humans.
So what do fundamentalists do when faced with evidence contrary to their collection of fables? They demand the evidence be removed, hidden, put in the closet where no one can know it exists.
Fundamentalist Christians in Kenya are demanding that the museum, now closed for renovations, put these exhibits in less accessible locations because “the Christian community is very uncomfortable” according to Bonifes Adoyo of Christ is the Answer Ministries. Adoyo, who calls himself a Bishop, said: “Our doctrine is not we evolved from apes and we have grave concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something presented as fact which is just one theory.”
Bishop Adoyo promises that Christians will inundate the museum with protests, letters, phone calls, etc., in order to force them to move the exhibit.
The gutless bureaucrats at the museum say they have the responsibility to show their artefacts it is “tricky when you have religious beliefs on one side, and intellectuals, scientists, or researchers on the other, saying the opposite.”
Interesting concept. We have one large group of people who study the origins of humanity and have piles of evidence that they want to put on display. On the other side we have the followers of a magic man in the sky who have no evidence merely a book claiming to be written by the magic man. And it’s hard for the bureaucrat to decide what to do.
Should we apply this sort of equivalency to other issues? Perhaps the main hospital in Kenya can get rid of surgery because some people in Kenya believe in magic workers who cast spells to cure people. And this becomes necessary because other magic workers cast curses that make people ill.
Now we all know that people have the right to self defense. If someone is trying to harm you then you have the right to use what force is necessary to stop them. So what if you believe the person harming you is a witch? And they are using spells to do so?
Hundreds of people every year in Africa are murdered by mobs of people trying to stamp out witchcraft. They believe, and the Bible supports them, that these witches are evil and in league with Satan. They believe the witches cast spells on them which curse them, make them ill, cause them bad luck, or can even kill them. Since they religiously believe the witches have supernatural power they have only one recourse to prevent this harm and that is to kill the witch. It’s self defense in their eyes.
And I can assure that these people really do believe in witches. I saw one soccer (football outside the US) match where a small cat ran onto the field. Both teams stopped playing to chase down the kitten and surround it. Then then stomped on the kitten killing it. They said such a cat appearing at the match was no doubt a witch sent to curse one of the teams. In a local village a monkey wandered into the area. The villagers cornered it in a tree and killed it. They said it was a witch and they had to kill it.
In South Africa alone several hundred “witches” are killed every year. One of the more recent incidents was near Kokstad in the Eastern Cape. A woman there was stabbed to death by a mob who said that she was a witch. In Umlazi an elderly couple was stabbed to death and then burned as witches. Not that long ago the provincial minister of education refused to enter he office claiming that a witch had cursed it. That was the “ministers of education”.
A 15-year-old girl in Timbavati was thrown out of school on the charge of being a witch. She is described as suicidal as a response and tried to take her own life three times.
Magdale Ndila of Tanzania is 80-years-old and lucky to be alive. She awoke to find a mob surrounding her. “I tried to get up couldn’t. Suddenly I felt a terrible pain and I realised my right hand had been cut off. It fell to the ground. I screamed in pain. My daughter was next door and heard me, but she was too scared to come as she knew I was being attacked. I was struck again on my other hand and then I felt blows to my head.” She says: “The reason whey they attacked me was because they thought I was a witch.” The BBC reports there are around 100 witch killings in Tanzania every year.
Now on the one hand we have intellectuals, scientists and researchers who say that there are no witches. On the other hand we have religion and the Bible. Gee, it’s a tricky situation. Hard to decide what to do. We have an obligation to protect people from being killed but we also have to respect religious beliefs and its hard to pick between the two.
Now would modern Western Christians fall for this sort of thinking? Fundamentalists do all the time. Rev. Pat Robertson has, on numerous occasions, argued that sinful people bring a curse upon the community. Prominent minister Jerry Falwell said of the terror attack on 9/11 was because “we make God mad.” He said that the lack of prayer in government schools and abortion was responsible “ I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”
Robertson said of the attack: “Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.” Why? Because schools don’t force students to pray and read the Bible. Once a year private groups sponsor “Gay days” at Disneyland and Disneyworld. Robertson warned that allowing this to happen could cause hurricanes, tornadoes, terror attacks and “possibly a meteor.”
When the voters in Dover, Pennsylvania voted out of office the fundamentalist who pushed creationism on the schools Robertson warned them that God would lift his protection of the city.
The museum in Kenya is trying to put both claims on the same plane. This is what fundamentalists in the US want. This is what the advocate of torture and hater of the Bill of Rights, in the White House, wants.
They have a superstitious, mystical claim to knowledge. And they argue that all claims are equal. So they want creationism taught in science classes. They want their mystical beliefs used as the foundation for law. And they argue absolute and total relativism. All claims should be treated the same no matter how absurd, how irrational, how superstition they may be.
But where do we draw the line? Once we admit the irrational into the legal system and allow faith to replace evidence we are on a very slippery slope indeed. Are the witch killers in South Africa merely defending themselves from evil? If, as so many fundamentalists argue, Jehovah will inflict disasters on nations that are tolerant of gays then what must we do to stop people from being gay?
Certainly the Westboro Baptist Church people say that being tolerant of homosexuals is the cause of every disaster that befalls America. Do we incarcerate them? I’ve heard many fundamentalist ministers advocate just that? Do we execute them? I’ve heard others say that.
At one fundamentalist rally I attend I had a couple from this major Baptist church tell me that the then current drought in California was the result of there being too many gays in the state. I thought that bizarre and asked them if one could then control the weather by moving homosexuals around by bus. If a state had floods would bussing in homosexuals cause a drought and end the floods, etc. They actually said that they thought that work. This is the magic believing mind at work. It the same sort of mentality as witch hunters.
I know fundamentalists well having been one of them. They are magic minded. They will go as far as they think they can now and go even further when they think that possible. This mentality is dangerous to Western civilization, dangerous to individual rights, and dangerous to freedom in general. We need to stand up and say “NO” when they demand to bring superstition and fantasy into the public sphere. We must defend their right to be irrational but when they want to control others via the state that is going too far.
20 Comments:
It's a bit unfair to present this story in the manner that it has been. It is not, as the museum guy stated, religion on one side and intellectuals on the other. The fact of the matter is, that the conclusions being presented along with the fossil records are completely intellectually dishonest.
It is on those grounds that the Creationists are protesting the exhibit. It is not the fossils record that they are uncomfortable with, as you have tried to portray here. Adoyo's full quote emphasized that they were uncomfortable with the theories that are being presented as fact.
Notably, the conclusions are extremely inconsistent with the actual fossil records. Here is an article which explains quite well why the Creationists are uncomfortable with the way these fossils are being portrayed.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i2/fossils.asp
It has nothing to do with "witchcraft" or magic. It has everything to do with scientific evidence being ignored, and scientists being dishonest with their conclusions.
December 05, 2006
oh yeah, and for what it's worth, here's a link on the same website with a whole slew of articles about the human fossil record, if you're interested.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp
December 05, 2006
Anyone who thinks Genesis is a good foundation for science has sawdust for brians. It is not science it is theolgy. And the "scientists" who claim otherwise are almost universally doing so out of their own religious beliefs. The consensus among scientists is that evolution explains the origins of life and that the evidence for this is overwhelming. That some religious folks disagree is not important. Bullshit is bullshit even when it comes from the Bible. That some people say disease is caused by the Devil or by God or evil spirits doesn't make it an "alternative" theory of disease.
Evolution is a fact. It is a theory in the same sense as we have a theory of gravitation. But that doesn't mean gravity may not exist because they use the word "theory". Theory in this sense is not the way most people use it in common language. It means a comprehensive, systematic explanation. For instance Mises wrote "A Theory of Money and Credit" where he systematically lays out monetary issues.
Scientific evidence is not ignored. Theology is ignored. Scientists have heard the Bible nuts and their theories and answered them time and time again. That is not ignoring them that is dismissing them as false. Dismissing the nonsense of witch doctors, faith healers, Christian Scientists, and homeopathy is not ignoring the "science" it is defending science for irrational, unsubstantiated claims. Your side debated for creationism since Darwin first wrote his book and lost!
I notice that to defend your "science" you couldn't point to an actual science site at all. You had to point to a fundamentalist, theological site that says the evidence can't be true because the Bible says something else.
December 05, 2006
Did you actually read any of the articles I cited before posting? I'll guess not, since you neglected to debate any of the scientific claims presented therein.
December 05, 2006
It is not my job to read articles you promote. As I said if you want to make your own argument do so and I will try to respond if I have the time to do so. If you merely want to link to fundamentalist web sites to promtoe them I'd rather you didn't. If you can read it yourself and format your own argument then why should I take the time to do that? If I read it and then responded to some specific point in the article and ignored other points (which is inevitable) you would thenm say "yes, but you ignored this point and this one and this one." You pick out the points you think are pertinent and make them in your own words and maybe we will have a dialogue.
And the more comments you post in a day the less likely it is I will be able to respond. So please remember that it is my time you are using up. I'm happy to reply when I can but I can't deal with several comments in one day espeically it they require me to go to other web sites and read their material and then there is no guarantee I'll respond to what you thought was the important point. If you want me to do work in reply then you do work in the comments. Don't expect me to do both your job and mine.
December 05, 2006
I had already read parts of that site before you posted it, couldn't get past the first few pages to examine the details, shit like...
"The authority for Answers in Genesis is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A: Bible). All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories. "
...That basically sums up what is wrong with christian science. Scientific fact is exactly that, fact. New theories, new information reguarding existing theories, ENCOMPASS what has been established as being scientific fact. Relativity basically threw the newtonian viewpoint out the window, newtonian equations were shown to give inaccurate answers, yet relativity did not replace Newtons theories, it encompasses them. Just as modern theories about evolution encompass the theories of Darwin. No theories about ID, nor any other christian scientist I've heard/read about seems to understand this.
There could well be scientific evidence to show that the fossils have been interpretted incorrectly, however why would anyone listen to a "scientist" who doesn't actually understand science fact? Science admits to it's mistakes, christians (on the whole) do not admit to their mistakes reguarding the bible. Genesis is either a metaphor or part of a fairy tale like NGZ likes to call it.
December 07, 2006
David: You are correct about the methodology of science. It does not start out with a theory. It observes facts and then formulates a theory based on the the facts. As new facts are discovered they are incorporated into the theory. If they contradict the theory you look for a reason why this may be the case. You may have to adjust the theory in light of new evidence. And this process goes on and on. But it is this process the Christianists don't like. They say that the fact that the theory is constantly adjusting as new evidence is fed into the equation is proof that it isn't true. Fundmentalism proclaims absolute knowledge and science only shows what is consistent with reality as we know it. When we test against the evidence and it holds up we consider it true. But a minor adjustment to a theory to fit with new evidence is not proof that a theory is false just that is more and more true as time goes on because it adjust to testable evidence. I will put in a field that Publius might know something about (at least on some level).
In 1776 Adam Smith published his Wealth of Nations. Now contrary to some he did not invent market economics. He described it. He looked at the world, took in the evidence and then describe a theory of how markets operate and why certain actions lead to certain consequences. But he had a major flaw in his work. He didn't quite understand what gave an item value. He thought that the value of labor input into a product gave it value. Ricardo took that and Marx tood that from Ricardo. On that premise Marx built further theories. He argued that if all value is created by labor then the only way to profit is by stealing the value of the workers. So he got his exploitation theory and class warfare theory from here. He has a heretical Smithian in fact. But the premise was wrong.
Now some of the Scholastics at Salamanca actually had the beginnings of a theory of value but it was not full developed nor was it widely known. It was only after Marx's death that Carl Menger started to forumulate a subjective theory of value and argued that "value is entirely subjective in nature".Eugen von Böhm-Bawer thought through the value theory systematically and wrote his major work "Capital and Interest" including his critique of the exploitation theory of Marx.
Now over a period of more than a century the theory of how markets determine values for goods evolved. New facts were discovered and incorporated into the old theory which had to be adjusted. Smith's old "invisible hand" theory was closer to the mechanistic universe, creator theory. But economic theory adjusted. Smith was basically right but had parts wrong. As Hayek emphasized (expanding on the world of others) a market is more like a system of spontaneous order (such as you find in nature) with intricate feed back loops. It is closer to a an eco-sytem than it is to a machine. (Machines are easier to tinker with and plan than eco-systems with intricate feed back loops). Now as market theory adjusted to new information it became more correct. And no doubt there will still be further developments. This does not mean that the theory was wrong. It means that one particular view of theory and specific claims used in the theory were wrong. Economic thought developed because errors in the older version of the theory were discarded and new information was incorporated. The theory is more correct today than 200 years ago. How values are determined is now better understand than it was during the Late Scholastics (who were ahead of Smith, Richardo and Marx on that issue).
This is vastly different than for fundamentalists who start out with revealed truth and have to find evidence to support the conclusion. Darwin did not start out with the idea of evolution and then went looking for the evidence. He had been studying the evidence and then discovered the theory. In fact Darwin had read the early Scottish economists and was familiar with the theory of spontaneous order in economics. And when reading about how markets evolves he saw a way of understand how life developed. Life and markets are both process of evolution that create a spontaneous order with no need for central planners in heaven or on earth.
December 07, 2006
Too much to comment on all of it, here, but I'll raise one point for discussion. David refers to Scientific "fact" a couple times. Isn't a fact something that absolutely and completely IS true? How can you call evolution scientific fact when there's no way to tell for sure that it is what actually happened? Evolution is a theory, not fact. The existence of Gravity is a fact. Facts can be evaluated and theories are built using the facts, but evolution is something that cannot be called fact.
December 07, 2006
Well, actually, it can be called fact. Evolution is fact, there... I just called it fact.
Evolution is a physical theory, just like kinematics or any other physical law. I disagree slightly with NGZ's interpretation of scientific methodology. Observation inspired evolution for sure, but the theory itself is a logical construct, the variables of observation have been eliminated. That is essentially what constitutes scientific fact. Scientific fact is a theory that will always be true reguardless of what new evidence is presented, any variation away from scientific fact will be explained by additions to it not the replacement of it.
The problem with evolution is it requires an understanding of every natural law science has ever concieved of, since it is the effects of those laws on material that causes it, and when new constructs are born of that process they themselves are added to the pallette of natural law influencing that process. The exact laws themselves are in a constant state of flux, hence why evolution is not called revolution.
Most of the ID and creationist arguements I've seen dispute evolution based on false understanding of the principle's of evolution, since they relate not only to biology, but chemistry, physics, and statistical analysis. Every one I've seen or heard about has appeared to beleive that because evolution is based on chance, that it is somehow and accident, and that obviously that can't be true since life is too complex to have been an accident. Yet this displays a gross ignorance of something that is essentially mathematics. Evolution is not based on a belief that we evolved by accident. The process of evolution is one of statistical inevidability, which is the exact opposite of an accident, it says that the only variables involved are when and where evolution takes place, not how, or what the end result will be.
Evolution is a physical law. Just like relativity, just like kinematics, just like gravity, just like every other provable logical theory.
December 07, 2006
Publius, I have to confess I found this reply rather amusing. You said, "Evolution is a theory, not fact. The existence of Gravity is a fact." Oh, how little science you know. In fact it has been know as the "Universal Theory of Gravity" since the late 1600s. For four hundred years it was called the theory of gravity and you don't know it. I have in front of me a NASA web page that discusses Einstein's theory of relativity and they not that it "generalizes Isaac Newton's original theory of gravity." Notice the "theory of gravity" party. Go ahead and do a Google search on "theory of gravity" and you find around half a million hits. Gee, it seems a lot of people knew it a was theory but not you. But see theory doesn't mean what you think it means. Look up theory on Wikipedia as they have a decent explanation. It notes the "common" usage means "opinion, or a speculation.. not necessarily based on facts... not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality." Sort of the way you seem to use it.
But in science (which you won't find in the Bible) it an "explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural pehnomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind." It can be test and "falsified through empiricial observation" They note explain what you don't know "for scientists 'theory' and 'fact' do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation." They continue on explaining this. Maybe you'll learn something.
So a theory in science is not merely an opinion or guess. It is a "self-consistent model for describing the behaior of related set of natural or social phenemena." Hence Mises' Theory of Money and Credit, Newton's theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of natural selection. Don't feel too bad. Every fundamentalist I run into is totally uninformed about the definition of theory when it comes to science. They all think it means opinion.
December 07, 2006
Apologies for going slightly OT NGZ, but since that's the second time you've cited economic theory I thought I'd add a comment reguarding the limitations of market correction. It does relate back to what we're talking about, if you'll endulge me a bit.
Market correction is a law that says any problem caused by a capatalist environment will correct itself in time, essentially if left alone. It does bare similarity to evolution because it relies on statistical analysis to make it's argument. For this reason, some people disagree with it, for the same reason a lot of people disagree with evolution, it is a result of a misunderstanding of the mathematical principles involved.
There are problems with both theories, but the solutions to those problems can only come through an understanding of the theories themselves, for they are not incorrect, they are merely incomplete.
My own theory is that market correction is reliant on information being a commodity which has a intrinsic value attached to it. However in our day in age, to a certain extent at least, the value of information has increased, impairing market correction and leading to a sociological backlash.
Any solution to this problem however, will not replace the theory of market correction, it will encompass it, diversifying and simplifying it's execution. Just as evolution has gone from being an explanation of the advancement of biological life, to a physical law that affects all matter.
I wrote a more simplistic view of this problem here:
http://girocandsinofar.blogspot.com/2006/11/stating-obvious.html
December 07, 2006
NGZ, I love it when you try to insult my intelligence, and end up making yourself look more the fool. The Theory of Gravity and the "existence of Gravity," are obviously two different things. The theory of gravity merely explains and describes the existence of gravity. The existence of gravity is a fact, which requires a theory to explain it. Do me the courtesy of at least attempting to keep your contempt for me out of your arguments. It has the tendency to make you comment before actually thinking about what I said, apparently.
December 08, 2006
You've got it a bit back to front there plubius. Saying gravity "exists" is a bit.. sketchy.. considering we don't really know what gravity actually is. We see the effects of it, the effects are described by the theory of gravity, thus when we talk about gravity we're talking about the theory, not the actual force, because we have no real idea what that is. The theory is real, the theory is more factual than our ideas about gravity because it's something we can actually describe and comprehend. Which is what scientific fact is all about, describing the world in a factual mannor which has no bias against what we know - and what we don't know about reality
December 08, 2006
I agree Publius you have it backasswards again. We can not see gravity we can see events like things falling. Gravity is a theory which explains why things falls as they do. The theory then expanded later. It is called a "theory" everywhere except in your own mind but theory doesn't mean what you fundies think it means as I explained. If you got your head out of your bible you might be able to think clearly. You can't because anything that challenges the nonses in that fairy tale just can't be true for you no matter the evidence because it would contradict the fairy tale. It is the typical circular reasoning of the fundamentalists.
December 08, 2006
I must contend that we're trying to say the same thing here, but I believe I've said it more accurately. You say "Gravity is a theory..." and I say no, gravity is not a theory. The Theory of Gravity is a theory, and gravity is a noun. It's a thing. As we've agreed, we don't quite fully understand exactly what it is, but what we do know, is that it exists. We know this because we see its effects. The Theory helps us understand this, but gravity's existence, as best we understand it, is a fact. The theory is only that, our best explanation of the fact itself. But again, I must emphasize that the theory is not the fact itself.
December 11, 2006
If a theory is consistent with the elements observered then it is true. A true theory is a factual theory. A theory in the scientific term can be a fact. Gravity is a fact and so is the theory of gravity.
December 11, 2006
Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. Back to Evolution. Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain the fact that we're here.
What I, and many others, contend, is that there are conflicting facts that would falsify the theory if it were truly being looked at objectively.
I'm not even saying anything about Intelligent Design yet, but just strictly understanding the Theory of Evolution, and pointing out objectively that THAT theory cannot be fact, because of conflicting evidence that would falsify that theory.
December 11, 2006
Evidence cannot falsify a logically proven theory. It cannot falsify 1+1=2. You can prove it's not complete through how it effects the real world as we see it. Just like how we can prove that we don't understand every single physical law in the universe. The theory itself is fact however, it's simply a part of a much larger concept that we have yet to map out.
This admition, however, does not give any amount of credence to your point of view. Because every arguement I've seen about the interpretation of evolutionary theory has always come down to attacking the theory itself, reguardless of the evidence involved.
The fact that the people who have gathered "evidence" against evolution, don't actually understand evolution is what makes ID and creationism such a joke.
Everything we see, everything we hear, is a description. It is our own senses interpreting a small part of the world for us. Science takes that process a few steps further. It is the logical extention of our own senses. Now, I can't prove that your brain isn't lying to you, I can't prove to you that I actually exist, for example. But for the benefit of the rest of us potentially ficticious individuals, understand that whatever you beleive the concept of "fact" to be, probably isn't what you think it is.
December 11, 2006
I am somewhere inbetween the two of you. I do believe evolution is a fact with a capital F. But I see the remote, extremely remote possibility that new evidence could challenge it. That said the god botherers have repeatedly tried to do that and the net result is that they have proven themselves to be entirely incompetent at understanding science in general and evolution in particular. Nor am I afraid of challenging prevailing theory on an issue. But I tend to think that when people specifically trained in a field repeatedly and for generations come to the same conclusion that they are probably right and that people not trained in the field, who have other axes to grind are wrong. The fundamentalist is deluded on so many levels, dishonest at so many levels, unpleasant at so many levels, that I have trouble taking them seriously. I know they routinely distort and twist on small matters in order to save that collection of fairy tales from doubt. They have no credibility with me. And when they have to do things like dismiss carbon dating and the very tools of evidence seeking itself to validate their absurd claims then it becomes too much. This is like someone saying that X is innocent of murder, noting that his fingerprints was on the weapon and his DNA at the scene of the crime but contending that fingerprints are unreliable and you can't trust DNA evidence. Sure you might persuade idiots to believe that (OJ Simpsom did) but the experts in forensics and intelligent observers are shocked.
In addition the fundie has to start out with premises that are absurd. He starts out with magic men in the sky, with infallible books written by the magic men, with a magic demon with vast powers deceiving people, etc. So not only does he have to dispute the tools of modern science to prove his theory, his theory comes out of silly manuscripts a few thousand years old written by people who knew nothing (such as the sun stopping in the sky when the sun does not revolve aorund the earth). You end up having to throw out reasonable theories for magic theories, ignoring evidence because the tools of evidence themselves contradict the conclusion. The fundamentalist starts with a conclusion and seeks to justify it.
December 12, 2006
NGZ, I think that was one of the most honest comments of yours yet, and I appreciate it. You are too right when you observe that a great many people who are attempting to challenge Evolution and uphold what we believe are the truths of Scripture, do so dishonestly many times. I think you rightly hold a certain bias against such people. All I can do, however, is attempt to argue logically and honestly, and objectively as humanly possible, trying not be unpleasant or dishonest until I have given reason for you to at least take me seriously. I do not expect that such a change will occur quickly, by any means, but I will continue until it is done.
Now, David says that "Evidence cannot falsify a logically proven theory," and I agree with that. But what I am saying and what others are saying, is that Evolution is not a logically proven theory at all. In fact, it seems to us to be very illogical at almost every level. To go into all the details of this would require more space than I'm willing to take up, but that is the argument.
December 12, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home