Good to see this again. This is also a great video to send to your religious folks because they don't see the satire until mid way into the video.

That one's a classic.

"So God goes mental . . ."

Ha!

Loved it! I love the fact that on the first "day" there was no light. Good stuff.

"there's pride in your work, then there's arrogance."

Huh. So I'm a Christian I know evolution. I've taken scores of courses over microbiology, biological evolution, anthropological evolution... on, and on, and on. I'm an evolutionist.

Now, you tell me where the contradiction lies.

"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap."

-Stephen Jay Gould

How do you explain why Jesus died without original sin?

I won't answer the question of whether there is a contradiction (although I will suggest that /fundamentalists/ can find contradictions without even venturing outside their own beliefs and holy books).

I will, however, suggest that as a Christian biologist you are applying your standards for knowledge rather inconsistently. You insist on rational arguments in your profession, yet you make large concessions to irrational arguments when it comes to your specific religion, while likely not extending these same concessions to equally deserving arguments for other religions.

Gould's argument is really weak: that clever people maintain inconsistent beliefs is no reductio ad absurdum. He assumes that his peers are clever, that clever people do not hold conflicting beliefs, and that to hold conflicting beliefs is to be stupid. They are not stupid; they are human -- and history is full of clever people maintaining inconsistent beliefs and ideas that would later widely be regarded as false -- why should religion be any different?

During David Hilbert's life, many clever people saw truth in astrology. Hilbert observed this, and from premises similar to Gould's arrived at a different conclusion:

"If one were to bring ten of the wisest men in the world together and ask them what was the most stupid thing in existence, they would not be able to discover anything so stupid as astrology." -- David Hilbert

The quote by Stephen Jay Gould must represent his intellectual nadir.

"conventional religious beliefs"

First of all, "conventional" needs a definition. Conventional where? Conventional when? Religious beliefs that are conventional in Malaysia? Mexico? Salt Lake City? Tom Cruise's backyard? Rome today, or for that matter, Rome in the year 1350? Clearly these religious beliefs are not "fully compatible" with each other.

Second of all, this is a sad appeal to authority - nothing more. Next April when I go to give a seminar at the National ACS meeting, I won't bother with presenting any information (experimental data) that supports my hypotheses and associated predictions I have made about enhanced magnetic coupling in open-shell gadolinium clusters - I'll just tell the audience that "either I and my highly educated colleagues are enormously stupid, or nature is fully compatible with my hypotheses."

Gould simply doesn't want to admit that "conventional religious beliefs" extant in all the times and places I listed above are flatly contradicted by the conclusions of "Darwinism". Furthermore, look at the underlying physical/chemical laws that ultimately provide all the credibility that the evidence that supports evolutionary theory has. Geological fossil dating methods? DNA and protein sequence homology? and on and on and on.... The physical laws that one must assume apply in analyzing all the evidence are simply incompatible with the miracles that part of the "conventional religious beliefs" of most religious adherents. One can believe that laws were somehow suspended or divinely superceded - but it is nothing more than denial to claim that they are "fully compatible".

gervais could have added:

1. that god created light BEFORE he created the sun. what god used as his light source before he created the sun remains a mystery

2. god created adam adn eve at the same time. but then a couple chapters later he changes his story and comes up with the rib story.

"They are not stupid; they are human -- and history is full of clever people maintaining inconsistent beliefs and ideas that would later widely be regarded as false..."

You just argued against appealing to authority, then immediately appealed to a majority. What utter failure.

Believing conflicting ideas (known as "doublethink") is ignorant. There's no reason to do so, and those who do are simply delusional. If you believe that a god created the heavens and the Earth, yet we evolved, then you are delusional.

Hm, I don't know that "doublethink" is an official term for anything. Of course, it was coined by George Orwell in 1984... (If we want to acknowledge it, then fine.)

I would ask you this: Is "doublethink" even possible? Can humans hold two contradictory ideas at the same time, and in the same sense, affirming both as true?

In the case of paranoid schizophrenics, or perhaps those who suffer from narcolepsy... perhaps. But, otherwise, I don't see it as (sanely) possible. Therefore, I must agree with you that those who do so are, in fact, delusional.

I suppose we agree entirely.

To continue: I don't see evolution and the belief in a creator as contradictory, but rather on two different planes of thoughts.

Now, you want to set a limit to thought, and say that anything past this limit is unthinkable. But in order to set a limit to thought, you should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable. To say, as Kant did, that one cannot cross the line of appearances is to cross the line in order to say it. Int other words, it is not possible to know the difference between the appearance and reality unless one knows enough about both to distinguish them.

Can humans hold two contradictory ideas at the same time, and in the same sense, affirming both as true?

Sure! Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs.

I don't see evolution and the belief in a creator as contradictory, but rather on two different planes of thoughts.

Let's not beat around the bush. Here, at least in accordance with the clip above, we are talking about demoniational beliefs; in other words, the Creation story of Christianity. Since you admit to being a Christian I think it's fair to ask which you believe: in the Bible's version of Creation or simply a "first cause" by a supernatural agent (we'll call it God if you like). Also, on what basis is this belief coming from? Is there a rational position for your side that you think you could argue for or do you think it's is a matter of faith (trust) that it is this way--perhaps for the purpose of consoling you?

"You just argued against appealing to authority, then immediately appealed to a majority. What utter failure."

Sorry, I should have been more explicit: that was exactly the point, to demonstrate that an argument can be made for anything if all you need is a quote from some famous person to make it. Not an utter failure: it demonstrates a point.

By the way, this just popped up in the NYTs:

"Denial Makes the World Go Round"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/health/research/20deni.html

And yet more denial:

"Deny All You Want, They'll Still Believe Why Public Denials May Only Fuel Conspiracy Theories"

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=3806949&page=1

This should be required reading for truthers and Bush apologists alike.

[Man was created by a superior intelligence] or [Man was not created by a superior intelligence.]

At some point, we have to cease this elevation into metaphysical categories of thought and ground ourselves in sensible language.

Clearly these statements are negations of the other. That is, not-C[reated man] is the negation of C[reated man].

Instead of appealing to higher "planes of thought." Why not just admit you're using a different, more nuanced definition of "creation" and what it means to "create" something?

Of course, now, you will be forced to explain in what intelligible sense—wherewhich Gervais pounces best with his humor—does God "create" things? Obviously, by their traditional definitions, Creation and Evolution are incompatible. Now it must be explained that there are other forms of "creation" or "causing," if there are any. It must also be answer whether "creation" and "causation" are terms which entail one another. Can they be used as synonyms? Will metaphorical language with regard to one lose all meaning when attempting to clarify the other?

I think many will agree that the concepts "creation" and "causation" cannot be subsumed into the other. Causing is something far more general and can, in certain contexts, be atemporal. Can "creation" be a concept not with respect to time? By the terms alone, not compared, we find that "creation" includes intent or purpose whereas "cause" implies no anthropological attributes.

So we're back at the initial debate: Creation and Evolution. Yet now we perhaps understand the fundamental and true opposed ideas: Purposeful creation or Non-purposeful creation.

I think the debate has little to do with evolution versus creation and more to do with peoples' metaphysical beliefs, the difficulty they face with language and their ability to come to meaningful terms.

Aaron, I enjoyed reading your post. Very well thought out. Whenever dealing with these metaphysical questions, it is always great to pause and further analyze any semantical problems which arise.

As for me, I may be leaving strict argumentation on these matters. They seem to almost always create semantical differences, and quickly lead to nowhere.

At the end of our lives, we hope that we lived in truth.