panelarrow

Atheist Tuesday: How Darwin Stole Christmas

| 43 Comments

Here’s a slightly provocative article I found by a woman named Sharon Sebastian, who runs a website called DarwinsRacists.com and has just written her second book called Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, which highlights Social Darwinism’s impact on America’s political ideology today and its influence on current policy out of Washington.

The assault on Christmas began in 1859 when figgy puddings were the rage. As 19th century families celebrated the birth of their Savior, a movement began to remove Christ from Christmas. It took root from the meandering suppositions of a man who, like his father and his grandfather, denounced Christianity. Seeking approval, the man proffered up a theory he believed would also win him favor with his agnostic, atheist and elitists friends. In defiance of God as Creator and armed with the new “theory,” those elitists looked down their noses at the reverent masses and their belief in a higher power.  The man was Charles Darwin. His theory, simplistic and unproven, was the theory of evolution.

Based on mid-1800 rudimentary science, devoid of empirical scientific data to support it, Darwin’s theory became the means to an end to replace God as both Creator and Sovereign over humankind and the universe. Darwin’s elites proclaimed all life evolved from nothing. Darwin’s bogus science provided what god-deniers needed to reject a Creator God. Based on Darwin’s “theory without a conscience,” Darwin’s elites logically extended — if there is no God, there is no Christ.  Evolution became the God substitute. Read the whole article by clicking here.

43 Comments

  1. Truly Steve, you are the gift that keeps giving. I haven’t even finished the second paragraph and I’m already headdesking.

    Darwin stole Christmas? The assault on Christmas? Christmas was all ‘let’s piously celebrate the birth of our savior’ up until 1859? This is so loony! Please, get a reality check. I fear you’re creeping into Time Cube land, dude.

  2. This… is a joke, right?

    I mean, right?

    Please tell me you’re not serious.

  3. Always glad to see you do due diligence, Steve.

    [/sarcasm]

  4. I read the article Steve, and I must say that that woman better be careful with matches because she’s liable to light all of her strawmen on fire. Not once does she list a single source for her information, but she has no problem making bold declarative and factually incorrect statements like ‘human beings do not evolve’ and ‘Top scientists now report they were ‘duped’ by evolution. She even goes back to the tired cliche of referencing Stalin, Mao and Hitler even though its been said NUMEROUS times that Hitler was Catholic and was given great leeway from the Catholic church in his rise to power. Someone should tell her to drop referencing Hitler when using her bat to bash Darwin. She even talks about how sad it is that evolution is the only thing being taught in science class…. I say if Creationism comes up with some testable, scientific facts that hold up to peer review, it too should be taught in science class, right Steve?

  5. Sharon Sebastian wrote:

    Yet, others have accepted Darwin’s hypothesis, along with his theory of evolution, that people with different skin colors evolve or advance at different rates as part of a natural process.

    So, I have to ask: is she just stupid, or lying?

    I think the answer is “both”.

  6. Steve, she has more misinformation on that site than I can shake a stick at.

    Seriously, it’s like she wanted to make every logical fallacy in the book.

  7. Also, I’ll point out that Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” was one of the many books that the Nazis wanted burned.

    Hitler did not accept, in any way, the theory of evolution. That is a plain and simple fact.

    And, even if he did, that still says NOTHING about whether or not the theory is correct.

    Testing determines whether or not a theory holds up, NOT what the possible negative consequences are.

  8. I like Evolutionists. They make me laugh. I have written on a few different subjects on my rarely updated blog. I get a note once in a while. But write on evolution, and wow, do I become popular.

    I see it is the same on this blog. It is amazing you guys don’t believe a word written here but you spend all this time “refuting” it. You really get fired up when your silly religion is threatened.

  9. Mark, in a sentence, what do you think evolution is?

    And to be clear, I mean “what do you think the fundamental claim of evolution is by the people who actually study it?”

    I’m curious how far off the mark it is.

    And no, it’s not a religion. And yes, some of us care enough about honesty that when we see lies and misinformation being spread, we try to show why they’re lies or misinformation. That’s probably why you become “popular”. If you actually did research and talked about the actual claims made by evolutionary biologists, I’m sure that people like myself would leave you well enough along.

    Lastly, I don’t believe what Muslims claim either, and I spend time refuting their claims on their blogs also so… don’t get so huffy and feeling persecuted, cuz you ain’t. 🙂 Look, if I had a blog that said “Creationists think that Jesus created the world with help from Mohammed using bits of twine and string in 600 AD”, you might comment with a “refutation” yourself. Or you might not.

    But, do you get it now, Mark?

  10. Ooops, that should be “I’m sure that people like myself would leave you well enough alone”

  11. @ Mark

    Ugh. Science isn’t a religion, no matter how much you and Creationists want it to be. You call it that so you can dismiss it. Science is the opposite of religion, its reason through data and testing based on evidence. Religion is faith based on no evidence, pure and simple. The reason people DEFEND it Mark is because of religious groups who try and destroy it, cover it up, or try to have it taken out of science classes without offering up any clear alternative. OR make bold declarative statements and/or lies or misrepresentations about it, and then proceed to spread it around the internet. The article is just one example of this, she writes it and then thousands of Christians read it, accept it at face value and then proceed to repeat what she asserts without checking the facts themselves. Eventually someone or some people have to stand up and say, excuse me, but that’s not true, or that’s not what this says, or that’s not how this went at all.
    As far as getting worked up about it goes, when people who care about the truth or the facts, or perhaps a subject they’re interested in learn that people are going around spreading lies about it, then usually they take it as a call to arms to correct those who are ignorant or lying. I mean how would you feel Mark if there was a blog on the internet that was devoted to saying that Jesus was secretly gay and his apostles were secretly his lovers, and that leading biblical scholars are finding all sorts of evidence of this and rejecting the idea of a heterosexual or assexual Jesus. I’d wager that you’d be upset or annoyed with it, because they’d be making incorrect assumptions or taking liberties with the Bible that just aren’t there.

  12. Okay’s let run this down.

    1. It’s important to remember, above all else, that Darwin is not the deity of evolution. You could discover that Darwin did drugs, abused his wife and sold his children into slavery. That doesn’t change a thing about the theory. Darwin made a large contribution to science, and is therefore an important historical figure.

    2. Darwin was a man of faith for many years, but a combination of his studies coupled with the tragic loss of his children shattered such faith. His wife remained a Christian and they frequently discussed religion. This is not a man who looked down on religion and thought less of those whom did. In fact, it can be argued that Darwin died very much an agnostic theist.

    3. Darwin did not set out to replace God. He looked for evidence, and what he found contradicted his old beliefs.

    4. Proof is for math. This is biology and theory is as good as you’re going to get. Can you at least learn some basic terminology before writing?

    5. Darwin was a biologist, not a sociologist. Social Darwinism, while perhaps inspired by the theory, has nothing to do with it. Darwin even went as far as to say that one of our species’s greatest strength is caring for the elder and sick.

    If you aren’t going to bother to read a science book, Steve, then why do you feel compelled to make a comment on something that, you yourself, admit to being very ignorant about?

  13. I was reading some more of her articles, and I noticed that all of the comments are closed. No doubt people were trying to correct her on all of her assumptions and she didn’t want to hear it.

  14. Vintango2k wrote:

    I was reading some more of her articles, and I noticed that all of the comments are closed. No doubt people were trying to correct her on all of her assumptions and she didn’t want to hear it.

    And that’s always something that I give credit to Steve for: he doesn’t close comments on his posts.

  15. Boy, she does like to throw around the word “theory” a lot, showing that she doesn’t understand the definition in scientific terms. We also believe in the Theory of Gravity. Are you expecting to start flying off into the sky?

    Oh, wait. What are your feelings on “The Rapture”? Maybe we’d better move on to the Theory of Relativity.

  16. Incidentally, from a historical perspective, you’re aware that Darwin studied to be an Anglican minister, right? And when he published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, he was still a churchgoing man. So he was one of the “the reverent masses (with) their belief in a higher power.”

    In fact, if you had ever actually READ Origin (you know, the stuff after the Ray Comfort garbage in the front of your copy), you’ll find that he was still fairly spiritual at that point. in his life.

    In his autobiography, he recalled that when he wrote Origin, he believed strongly in the existence of God due to “the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

    His other works show that his life was a gradual migration from Anglican Christianity to agnosticism. In his own words, “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. — I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, — that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.”

    And what’s this nonsense about “like his father and his grandfather, denounced Christianity”? His father, Robert, was a Unitarian, which may be a little wishy-washy for you, but his grandfather, Erasmus, was a devout Anglican who was buried (you know, after he died) in All Saints Church in Derbyshire, central England.

    This lady really doesn’t know much about the life of Chuck D, does she? It would be nice if she’d read up on the man before trying to write about him.

  17. I can understand not wanting to have to constantly filter out people who flame comments sections because it becomes tedious but shutting down any talk back makes it difficult to refute or correct things when they’re just wrong. Plus they’re fun too and allow people to interact and debate. Thank you Steve for not shutting down the comments on your site.

  18. I find most atheist/evolutionists can’t even give a good verbal definition of evolution. If they could, maybe they would live their lives as if they actually believed it. Talk about hypocrisy!

  19. Evolution explains the diversity of species, Jack. I fail to see how we’re not living according to that. Maybe I wasn’t born with enough changes or something? Gosh, I guess your post demonstrates that we really do need to work on a better definition for the lay person. Or you’re just trolling.

    Steve, this is hardly a debate. You linked an article riddled with errors and have contributing nothing yourself beyond that. This is a lecture, if anything.

  20. “I find most atheist/evolutionists can’t even give a good verbal definition of evolution.”

    How ’bout inheritable change in population.

    “If they could, maybe they would live their lives as if they actually believed it.”

    This makes no sense, please explain what you mean.

    Jack – perhaps you have some distorted idea of what evolution is? Can you briefly describe what you mean so we can be sure we’re talking about the same thing?

  21. You know, Jack, that might have been a little too deadpan to be good sarcasm. Since the fundies will cheerfully try to describe “Evolution” (capital E) or Darwinism as a religion, that comment is just lame enough that somebody might try it out for realsies.

  22. Was I poe’d?

  23. Evolution. or Evilution as it is referred to by top scientists, is the religion of atheists who worship Charles Darwin as their God, and allows them to deny the obvious existence of God and Jesus Christ as proven factually by the Bible and the Genesis Account. It states that we all came from monkeys and that nothing created everything, and so we have no sense of morality and are allowed to kill, rape, and commit genocide whenever we want. I believe that’s the correct definition, right? RIGHT!?

  24. “How ’bout inheritable change in population.”

    Close, it looks like a Wikipedia definition, but I would have added biological change. Also technically a population doesn’t mutate, the organisms making up the population mutates.
    How about this?
    Evolution – when an organism mutates responding to its environment and passes that mutation to its offspring benefiting its survival.
    I think that is a little closer.

    It’s my point that most evolutionist/atheist don’t live their lives as if they are mutating and have something to pass on to offspring. The ones I talk to don’t actively pursue finding a mate or if they do they don’t pursue having offspring on a scale that impacts the TFR (total fertility rate). As a matter of fact they look down on the ones that do. I bet most where applauding the recent censes report showing a reduced population growth of Homo sapiens. Go figure?

  25. Jack, animals have been reproducing since life began without knowledge of the theory of evolution. There’s nothing to live up to: reproduction has its own incentives.

    Many individual animals do not reproduce for a variety of reasons. Humans have even more, such as not being able to afford raising offspring. Not to mention that there is very little evolving required of humans: we adapt to a ridiculous number of habitats as it is and have a staggering global population. It would take a considerable change in the earth for anything to happen to us as a species.

    Your suggestion is ultimately like telling person that, upon learning of respiration, why they don’t manually breathe all the time. There’s no need to: it happens on its own.

    The human population is still growing. A reduced growth rate is still a growth rate. You are so desperate to make a shoddy point that you don’t think logically: Earth has finite resources and cannot sustain a forever growing population. It’s good if our population isn’t increasing so long as the reduction in rate is from conscious decisions from people and not horrible infertility plagues.

    Should our population get too low, well, I don’t think it’ll be hard to convince people to resume having sex.

  26. “Close, it looks like a Wikipedia definition…”

    That’s funny.

    “… but I would have added biological change.”

    What inheritable change in population wouldn’t be biological?

    “Evolution – when an organism mutates responding to its environment and passes that mutation to its offspring benefiting its survival.
    I think that is a little closer. “

    Ah, no. Not close at all. Populations evolve, not individuals. Mutation isn’t the only game in town – recombination and gene flow also add alleles to the gene pool. And, “when an organism mutates responding to its environment,” is just… wrong.

    And for what it’s worth: ‘Evolutionist’ does not equal ‘atheist’ and I am not mutating.

    “The ones I talk to don’t actively pursue finding a mate or if they do they don’t pursue having offspring on a scale that impacts the TFR (total fertility rate).”

    Well, what an odd thing to expect. Are you pursuing having offspring on a scale that impacts the TFR? How many would that be?

  27. Garrett and Perdita, thanks for having this discussion.

    Just for kicks and giggles I looked up evolution on Wikipedia it states.

    “Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.”

    Look familiar Perdita? “How ’bout inheritable change in population.”

    At least they add biological and they also added:
    “This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction.
    The main source of variation is mutation, which introduces genetic changes.”

    Perdita-I guess you stopped reading after the first sentence?…. Mutation?

    As far as “when an organism mutates responding to its environment,” being “just… wrong. ” That was my way of describing adaptation. Remember “adaptation”? Garrett talked about it in his comments so does Wiki.

    I said this was my best attempt at a definition, not perfect. I guess I should have gone to Wikipedia first like….Perdita?

    But that being said, I can agree with Perdita’s and Wiki’s definitions. Let’s not quibble about definitions.

    My question is if you really think this is true. What are you doing about it? Do you have your mate yet? Are you aggressively adding to the gene pool in this evolutionary competition you believe is going on? Do you feel your genes should be left out? Or is evolution not really based in reality for you, is it just words to justify some deep-down- inside anti-religious feeling? That would be silly because if evolution is true then the atheists (who believe in evolution) should be thanking the religious for keeping the species going. The religious have been doing the heavy lifting of keeping the gene pool alive and full. I bet both of you owe your existence to some religious folk in your family tree. The fallacy of religion would not matter. Does one protest too much?

    I don’t think the 13 children each of you could have would hurt the environment or overtax the planet, if that were even possible by Homo sapiens. As a matter of fact they might even help the planet. Look how far we have come both technologically and environmentally. I don’t know if either of you remember the 70’s and the pollution in southern California. Now look at it- even with more people and cars, the air is much cleaner. It took great Homo sapiens minds or brains to figure out how to do that. The more brains, the more computing power to figure stuff like that out. I could go on with other examples, for instance comparing the industrial revolution (circa 19 century) pollution and population to now, but I won’t.

  28. Sorry but I think my definition is the correct and no amount of evidence can convince me to the contrary, life can’t come from non-life, we didn’t evolve from rocks, dang it! Evilution is a religion case closed, I’ve seen the light. Sorry guys.

  29. Thirteen kids would overtax ME. Even one kid would. I don’t like taking government money, Jack, so I’m tryin to live within my means.

    You are also making blanket statements in order to prop up your shoddy point. Most of us are looking for mates, or have them! We also evolve as a population: trying to steer things on your own is a waste of your time. Forcing people to pair off is an infringement of rights and ridicuously ineffective. Because the process occurs naturally on its own.

    The rest of your post is just nonsense. Evolution occurs regardless of what you believe. Trace you lineage back really really far, and you’ll find a primate that has no interest in religion.

    I don’t know if you are confusing this with “social darwinism,” or just trolling. Even if every atheist on the planet stopped breeding, guess what? species would continue to evolve. It doesn’t run off belief.

    Give it up, Jack.

  30. “I guess I should have gone to Wikipedia first like….Perdita?”

    Wow, Jack. You seem to have issues. You asked for a simple def and I gave you a simple def. That I would mention change in population AND wiki would mention change in population is sooooo suspicious! I mean who would have thought that about about evolution?

    The main source of variation is mutation, which introduces genetic changes.”

    Perdita-I guess you stopped reading after the first sentence?…. Mutation?

    I said that mutation wasn’t the only game in town and the wiki supported this.

    I quibbled with how you described adaptation because it seems you think evolution is directed – i.e., that brown bears somehow knew they would have to turn white in order to survive in the arctic. Let me know if I misunderstood.

    Yes – evolution happens. Maybe the reason we don’t live the way you think we should is because you’re totally off the mark.

    You seem to think evolution is about individuals and not populations. You also appear to be adding a whole lot of baggage to evolution. Seriously. Do you really think our species is in danger of dying out? Do you really believe that biologists don’t have kids? That atheists don’t have kids?

    “The religious have been doing the heavy lifting of keeping the gene pool alive and full.”

    I’m going with the Nameless one on this – you must be a Poe.

  31. Garrett you’re missing the point. You act as if Homo sapiens operate on instinct like non homo sapiens. I didn’t comment on this before but:

    “Many individual animals do not reproduce for a variety of reasons. ”

    Really? Name one individual animal besides homo sapiens that chooses not to reproduce? Homo sapiens cognitively choose to have offspring or not have offspring.

    No one is advocating “forcing people to pair off” that’s laughable.

    “Evolution occurs regardless of what you believe.”
    Tell me how evolution happens without offspring?

    “You seem to think evolution is about individuals and not populations. You also appear to be adding a whole lot of baggage to evolution. Seriously. Do you really think our species is in danger of dying out? Do you really believe that biologists don’t have kids? That atheists don’t have kids?”

    Not enough to impact the population’s TFR as a whole.

    Let’s talk “populations”. Ironically the Evolution believing /Atheistic West is in danger of dying out. Have you guys read the 2008 UN Population Prospects? Its data is confirmed in the 2010 US Census. Those of Western decent are going bye-bye. If not for immigration and the longer life spans of the elderly, the population of the US and Europe etc. would be greatly declining. Other countries that buy into western ideas start to as well. Their TFR starts to decline.

    “Even if every atheist on the planet stopped breeding, guess what? species would continue to evolve. It doesn’t run off belief.”

    Right you are, but atheist/evolutionists would be extinct. Like the dinosaur.

    And that’s my point- the “very intelligent” population of atheist/evolutionists are going instinct and don’t even know it. Don’t even realize it. I actually feel sorry for you.

    Do you, as a cognitive homo sapien, live your life as if you were participating in the survival of the fittest competition? You can’t rely on instinct like other species.

    Are you for or against allowing homo sapiens in a population group abort their young? Do you believe homo sapiens should promote gay marriage over marriage between men and women?

    Factoids – In order to maintain a population for more then 25 years a TFR must be above 2.11. So to just maintain you need to have 3 children. In demographic history a TFR of 1.9 has never been reversed. Technically irreversible is at 1.3.
    – You can take the whole population of the world and move them to Texas and you would still have a lower population density than in NY city. Overpopulation?? Not! Look it up. Do the math.

    What’s a Poe?

  32. Jack – I’m copy/pasting this from Urban Dictionary

    Poe’s Law:

    Similar to Murphy’s Law, Poe’s Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.

    “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”

    In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.
    The following is an actual Internet post to Biblically defend a flat Earth:

    “All I was saying was that either the earth is flat, and the bible is correct, or the earth is round, and the bible is incorect, i’m going to study the issue more and deside for myself which route I want to take. Either Atheist evolutionist, who agrees with all of mainstream sciences, or flat earth litteral bible believer.
    I’m leaning toward being an atheist, because if I can’t believe the bible to be completly litteraly true, then I can’t believe Jesus when he speaks about heaven, etc..
    That would make the moon landing a fake, and pretty much all of modern science false…”

    Response:

    “That’s it, I’m claiming Poe’s Law on this guy.”

  33. Garrett you’re missing the point. You act as if Homo sapiens operate on instinct like non homo sapiens. I didn’t comment on this before but:

    “Many individual animals do not reproduce for a variety of reasons. ”

    Really? Name one individual animal besides homo sapiens that chooses not to reproduce? Homo sapiens cognitively choose to have offspring or not have offspring.

    Here’s a study on rams, which showed some to have no interest in mating: http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/6/1520. It seems that nonsexuality in nonhumans has some problems (since you basically have to follow an animal its whole life), but there are some examples.

    Better evidence is homosexuality in animals, of which over a thousand species have displayed. They’re still having sex, but it’s clearly not contributing to the birth rate or next generation. But these species don’t die out, why?

    Because species evolve as a population. In humans, homosexuality is very rare. The popular “1 in 10” is based off older, inaccurate data. Last number I heard was 2 or 3%. It’s not enough to hurt us. Why?

    Because species evolve as a population.

    I will say it until it haunts your dreams, Jack.

    No one is advocating “forcing people to pair off” that’s laughable.
    I, as an individual, cannot do anything to the human species as a whole. Because species evolve as a population. In order to “steer” any kind of evolution, you would need to have huge numbers of people breeding with others. And you would need detailed information on their genetic history, because even people with seemingly “good genes” could have a cocktail of crippling recessives. And then you have to make sure all these people get along with each other.

    Now do that for hundreds of generations.

    Eugenics didn’t just fail because it’s a staggering violation of human rights: it also has a ridiculous logistical demand that lands it right into the realm of fantasy.

    Tell me how evolution happens without offspring?
    You are going off on nonsense about how religious people are keeping the species afloat. Well, guess what: they are part of the evolutionary process regardless of what they believe.

    Let’s talk “populations”. Ironically the Evolution believing /Atheistic West is in danger of dying out. Have you guys read the 2008 UN Population Prospects? Its data is confirmed in the 2010 US Census. Those of Western decent are going bye-bye. If not for immigration and the longer life spans of the elderly, the population of the US and Europe etc. would be greatly declining. Other countries that buy into western ideas start to as well. Their TFR starts to decline.
    I starting to get a racist flavor from you. Who cares? The species is still increasing as a whole. Our numbers would have to dwindle to the four-digits (and have before) to be at risk of extinction.

    When other countries buy into western ideas, they will also see massive decreased infant deaths and increased lifespans due to the introduction of modern medicine. They will have clean water and food. And probably less due to “buying into western ideas” and more to “not living in squalor under the thumb of uncaring governments.”

    Right you are, but atheist/evolutionists would be extinct. Like the dinosaur.Okay, now you’re just being an idiot. Atheism is not a species. Nor is evolution. They are abstract ideas. Every atheist could die right now, and it would not prevent some girl in the 3000s from questioning her faith. Your grasp on the subject is so poor I’m convinced you’re trolling.

    And that’s my point- the “very intelligent” population of atheist/evolutionists are going instinct and don’t even know it. Don’t even realize it. I actually feel sorry for you.
    My parents are both Christians. My grandparents on both sides were Christians. I…am an atheist!? How can that be?

    Maybe because atheism is a personal opinion and not genetic. Oh, and our numbers are growing: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm So you’re just pulling assertions out of the aether.

    Do you, as a cognitive homo sapien, live your life as if you were participating in the survival of the fittest competition? You can’t rely on instinct like other species.
    Survival of the fittest means adapting to the environment. We don’t seem to have a lot of competition there. You, of course, have no idea as to what it means. You might even see it as competition within the species. Which, would be stupid…

    Because species evolve as a population.

    Are you for or against allowing homo sapiens in a population group abort their young? Do you believe homo sapiens should promote gay marriage over marriage between men and women?
    Absolutely. A mother ill-prepared for child can be a detriment to society. Allow her to abort and have her child when she’s ready rather than potentially causing generations to be born in poverty.

    I think we should promote gay marriage equally to heterosexual marriage. I mean, shouldn’t gays go extinct soon? Not like they can reproduce…

    Factoids – In order to maintain a population for more then 25 years a TFR must be above 2.11. So to just maintain you need to have 3 children. In demographic history a TFR of 1.9 has never been reversed. Technically irreversible is at 1.3.
    – You can take the whole population of the world and move them to Texas and you would still have a lower population density than in NY city. Overpopulation?? Not! Look it up. Do the math.

    We still have that TFR, so what is the issue again? Show me evidence that atheists are doing without sex in meaningful numbers. We’re still a small group, not large enough to make a huge difference numbers-wise. Why?

    Because species evolve as a population.

    It would be the RELIGIOUS killing us off, if anything. But they aren’t. Nobody is. Our species is still increasing. And how blind are you? This has nothing to do with space. Resources are finite, Jacky. We already have many people without ample supplies of food and clean water. If I put you in a big room without food, you’re still going to go hungry.

    You have to be trolling. I cannot even call you ignorant. You are INCREDIBLY stupid if this post is sincere. Which I don’t think it is.

  34. Jack, you seem to believe that “atheism” is an inheritable trait.

    Is my understanding correct? You seem to not have thought of the idea that religious people can lose their faith and become atheists.

    I just don’t see the connection you’re making.

    Perdita, for the record, I am NOT calling Poe’s Law here; I think Jack is serious.

  35. Thanks for the dialog.

    Thanks Nohm, I definitely am not a POE.
    I am not pretending to be anything.

    “Jack, you seem to believe that “atheism” is an inheritable trait.”

    No I see it as a belief system or belief. I believe all beliefs have an impact on a person’s life.

    But I could argue that it could be:

    What do athiest/evolutionist believe about thoughts and beliefs? What are they? Are they just chemical reactions in the brain from responses to stimuli (environment, training, education, personal reflection)? Why does one believe one thing and another believe another, when both are exposed to both?

    Why do you believe there is not a God while others do?

    If one says they are smarter and others are dumber then is that a biological assessment?
    If you had a different biology would you believe something else?

    I assume that athiest/evolutionist don’t believe in a soul.

    So one might assume that they believe there would be some kind of biological link to beliefs? If it was biological then could it indeed be inheritable?

    If a population’s belief system causes them to stop reproducing and another’s belief system causes them to reproduce then which is going to survive?

    But again I see atheism/evolution as a belief system/belief. I believe all beliefs have an impact on a person’s life.

    My real point, which seems to be lost on everyone, is this.

    The athiest/evolutionists I talked to argue that they believe in evolution. That it is a fact. That science supports it. That it is the process responsible for all biological life on the planet. Sounds like an important process! They argue with religious people about the truth of their belief. Homo Sapiens are a product of a biological struggle millions of years in the making! Then if you look at their personal lives they don’t live their lives as if they do believe it. Garrett’s a great example. He is giving one excuse after another of why he doesn’t join in the struggle. Evolution 101 find mate produce offspring. I find that hypocritical.

    That’s like a Christian saying he believes in God and the Bible but doesn’t live his life as if he does. “Christianity is true for a population but has nothing to do with me? But I believe it’s true? “

    Are you in a biological competition and struggle or not? Or maybe you believe it stopped? Or is it a convenient way to explain life around you without including a God?

    Or maybe it never happened to begin with?

    Happy New Year! – Garrett, Perdita and Nohm

    I enjoyed this discourse.

  36. “Are you in a biological competition and struggle or not? ”

    I think you are missing our point. Your views on evolution are a bit off. You seem to think that all ‘evolutionists’ are atheists and use the term interchangeably. You seem to think that the sole purpose of the TOE is to deny your God. You seem to think that biological competition is some sort of event that we chose to either participate in or not. You seem to think that the human race is not one species.

    The really funny thing is that you accuse us of hypocrisy because we don’t live by your distorted views of evolution.

    “I assume that athiest/evolutionist don’t believe in a soul.”

    If I can make you understand one thing, it would be that atheist and ‘evolutionist’ are not the same thing. There are many kinds of atheists – including those that believe in souls and the supernatural. There are many kinds of ‘evolutionists’ (scare quotes used, because this seems to be a term that only creationists use), including evangelical Christians. Your arguments make little sense against this fact.

  37. Jack – Are you conflating eugenics for the theory of evolution? I hope you’re not that ignorant.

  38. Notice how utterly defeated Jack is. He stops engaging me once I pull out facts and evidence. He just dismisses them as “excuses” and hopes I won’t press him on it.

    Address my points, Jacky boy, or concede the point.

  39. Okay, back home and ready for some meatier writing.

    Jack’s main point seems to be “Some people believe in evolution but don’t act like it.” My response is “So what?” Evolution isn’t fueled by that: the process continues regardless. Evolutions also doesn’t tell people how to live or act: that is individual thinking. It’s not some perfect, shining guide to improve our lives: it is simply the explanation for the diversity of life. Take from that what you will.

    It’s also not something conjured up to eliminate gods. The theory is perfectly compatible with some deity plopping everything into existence. Now, it does eliminate certain gods (spoiler: yours), which is probably why you’re all upset about it.

    Yes, genetics play into why a person is prone to being religious or not. But we cannot yet predict how a life is going to play out, as there is an incredible number of variables that play into that. Both environment and lineage play into it. There is no “atheist” gene or “theist” gene.

    You then proceed to go off into the meta. If you are that curious, go read a biology textbook. Study the human brain. If you have a legitimate curiosity, then slake it with some education. But I am very skeptical that you do.

    If one belief system does not reproduce, then it can recruit. Or maybe it dies out, but leaves behind material that influences a whole new generation to rebirth the system. Beliefs are not inheritable traits.

    “That it is the process responsible for all biological life on the planet.”
    You do not know what evolution is, and are making a fool of yourself. Evolution explains biodiversity, not origins. Our common ancestor could have come from a god, aliens, the big bang or a really smart robot from the future. Evolution explains what happens after the ancestor came here.

    Again, you don’t take the time to refute even one of my arguments. You are showing a lack of desire to have a discussion and rather just talk at me. Why are they excuses? Why aren’t they valid?

    “Evolution 101?” You have already made a huge factual error regarding evolution: it is clear you have done little-to-no research on the subject. Evolution doesn’t tell you to find a mate and breed.

    Christianity is not a scientific theory. It both tries to explain the workings of the universe while simultaneously providing moral guidelines. Evolution is a scientific theory. It explains the diversity of animals. It does not provide any kind of moral guideline or philosophy.

    Yes, we compete with other animals for resources. But that’s only on a macro, population scale. Which I have told you MANY times now.

    If by “discourse” you mean “ignore what is said to me and keep blathering the same, incorrect arguments,” then I imagine you enjoyed it immensely.

  40. Sorry, I was out of pocket being busy with family and work. Garrett and Perdita, It sounds to me you are denying that one’s belief and one’s behavior have nothing to do with each other? Am I getting this wrong?

    “You seem to think that biological competition is some sort of event that we chose to either participate in or not.”

    Humans can choose not to participate. Garrett gave some reasons why they don’t.
    “Thirteen kids would overtax ME. Even one kid would.”

    “I don’t like taking government money,” (I have no idea as a species how we were able to survive for millions of years without government money. We were just lucky.)

    “You seem to think that the human race is not one species.” “The really funny thing is that you accuse us of hypocrisy because we don’t live by your distorted views of evolution. “
    No, I believe we are one species with a lot of subcultures. I have no problem with the humans that are engaged in the biological competition. Most of them don’t have the western-born ideas of evolution and atheism. I just find it ironic and hypocritical that those who believe in evolution make tons of excuses why not to engage in the biological struggle they believe takes place.
    There is a short book or treatment called “Stop Extinctionist Thinking” by Mark T Savage. You can find it on Lulu.com. He is an evolutionist with a bunch kids. He sounded just like you guys; then he had an epiphany.
    I don’t agree with him when it comes to religion and his assumption that evolution is true. But at least he is intellectually honest.

    Garrett – I would only be regurgitating his book to answer each of your objections. He pretty much covers them and more.

  41. Belief and behavior are linked. Evolution does not say you have to do anything. It’s simply what happens in nature, and I’ve already explained to you why it is impossible to try and steer evolution. The logistics would be insane, and it’d be a gross violation of human rights. And then we’d have to maintain it for a long, long period of time. And for what? What do you think humans are lacking, Jack?

    I plan on having kids, Jack. But that will be when I can afford to give them the proper environment to grow in. You are interpreting my lack of desire to have kids as some unchanging constant. You are also STILL asserting that there is some epidemic of atheists not having children. Need I remember you that the 2.5 kid standard is largely from the religious. They are the ones not having enough kids to replace themselves.

    Jack’s book is just a lulu project, and five dollars I’m not going to spend. Again, the supposed growth of asexuality is still firmly in your imagination. You have no given any evidence that there is decline in children from, specifically, those whom understand the theory of evolution.

    You are officially wasting my time. You do not reply to my refutations nor do you respond to corrections of your blatantly inaccurate statements. You have nothing, and I know this because instead of actually trying to argue my points you instead link a book claiming to have said refutations knowing that I will not spend five dollars to read that.

    And I read a preview: it’s garbage. Besides being grossly unprofessional (grammatical errors and poor spelling abound), it barely has knowledge on evolution that surpasses, well, Jack.

    Pathetic, Jack. Stop wasting my time.

  42. “I have no problem with the humans that are engaged in the biological competition.”

    Jack, that statement, right there, shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Your statement has nothing to do with the science of evolution. Until you can understand this, we will continue talking past each other.

    Again, Jack, the hypocrisy you claim to see is due to your complete misunderstanding of the subject. Wash-rinse-repeat.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.