If congress ever moves Election Day to the third Tuesday in December the Democrats would have to board up the windows and auction off the furniture.

The way to win these fights is to get tough and keep the pressure on. Most of the relevant law is really on our side, and every day, in every way, the Federal judiciary is getting better and better. We need to let everyone know that selling out to the athiests, queers and similar malcontents is not the path of least resistance.

Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in Terra, pax hominibus, bonae voluntatis. The men of evil will may have to settle for something other than peace.

That's it, I'm done--off to Christmas vigil mass, and then a Christmas party, Merry Christmas to all, whether they want it or not.

Isn't it somewhat un-Christian to so clearly align one of the most economically oriented celebrations with the birth of Christ?

Why not split them in two? Have a religious celebration of Jesus's birth on any one of the other dates that are just as likely as December 25th, and keep the 'Festive Season' consisting of all the pagan and/or secular traditions or those not related to the birth of Christ (Santa Claus and his elves, a decorated tree, presents, Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer, The Grinch etc. etc.) at the usual time, as an appealing and economically constructive way for friends and family to gather and finish off the year?

creeper:

Why? It gives everyone who believes but is embarrassed by it the opportunity to celebrate Him vicariously.

creeper - What makes you think Christ is opposed to the economically oriented parts? And of the things you claim to be secular, Santa Claus is a Christian Saint, the elves would be too if they were real, and the Grinch is a Christian allegory.

If your plan were carried out, new "economically oriented" parts of Christmas would grow up around the new Christian holiday, and the secular holiday fashioned from the old "economically oriented" parts would not survive long without the missing Christian parts. Your effort to steal Christmas would be as doomed as the Grinch's.

Saint Nicholas is a Christian Saint, portrayed in a bishop's robe. While the name of Santa Claus is derived from Saint Nicholas, his appearance and persona is not - that stems from Father Christmas, which in essence has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

BTW, I did not claim that list of things to be secular, but "pagan and/or secular traditions or those not related to the birth of Christ". Big difference.

"If your plan were carried out, new "economically oriented" parts of Christmas would grow up around the new Christian holiday, and the secular holiday fashioned from the old "economically oriented" parts would not survive long without the missing Christian parts. Your effort to steal Christmas would be as doomed as the Grinch's."

Alternatively, take away all the pagan and/or secular traditions or those not related to the birth of Christ, and see what happens to church attendance come Christmas time.

creeper:

Why?

"Why?" meaning "Why take away all the other traditions and see what happens to church attendance etc.?"?

Because despite the occasional and inevitable fuss made over how Christmas has become so much about elements not related to its religious significance, it would behoove Christians to not lose sight of how much the institution of Christmas and its vast appeal are built on the co-opting of other traditions (pagan, secular, even commercial) that have nothing to do with the story of the birth of Jesus.

The church benefits from this. In order not to be hypocritical, it should either not complain about the secularization of Christmas, or simply do the honest thing and separate the two: celebrate the birth of Jesus for what it is, without the crutch of pagan traditions etc.

BTW, what makes you think that a day celebrating the birth of Christ set in, for example, April or May would automatically attract "economically oriented" parts, such as rampant exchanging of gifts?

In Holland, for example, the holidays are already split. St. Nicholas is celebrated on December 5th (or 6th) and is a gift-giving bonanza. Christmas itself is much more restrained, with somewhat more attention given to the religious aspects of that holiday. (I lived in Holland for a while in the 70's and am going from memory here.)

creeper:

No, why change Christmas? It works rather well as is.

Sure, let's keep it as it is. Works fine with most of it being based on pagan traditions, but then let's ignore any future complaints about the religious/Christian aspects of it not getting their proper due.

They are getting their proper due, and if that's overshadowed by other elements (with some people now even chosing to omit mention of Jesus), that's because it's not a Christian holiday to begin with. Some missionaries stuck the name Christmas on it, but Yuletide came first, is resonant as a way of ending one year and beginning the next with festivities and gift-giving, and remains very much with us today.

As for the issues raised in the second article above, I don't see why this should be fought tooth and nail. Some excellent solutions are presented in the article:

"In 1998, a federal judge ruled that a creche in front of Somerset Town Hall was unconstitutional because it gave the impression the town endorsed Christianity. The town was allowed to continue to display the creche after expanding it to include a Hanukkah menorah and a Santa Claus.

A creche sponsored by a private group is on display on the Norwood Town Common, with a nearby sign stating that other groups are welcome to put up holiday displays."

I think in the case central to the article the ACLU is overreaching and wasting both their own and others' money, but then it's hardly the first time that ever happened. If an alternative can be found to put up nativity scenes and displays of other residents' religions in a town square, then I think that would be the ideal compromise.

Unfortunately, due to the rise of privately owned shopping malls etc., the notion of a public forum in the form of a town square is being eroded, which I think is a great pity.

Incidentally: "Your effort to steal Christmas would be as doomed as the Grinch's."

It was the Christians who stole Christmas in the first place by hi-jacking Yuletide for the purposes of converting pagans to Christianity. Throughout the centuries, Christians have tried to eliminate the pagan traditions and have Christmas be just about Jesus, but this has failed more than once. Yuletide is too strong.

BTW, when you mention that the Grinch is a Christian allegory, are you talking about the recent movie or the original book?

creeper:

I'm confused by your argument. I can see why pagans would want their holiday back, but not why Christians would give it? We won.

Christians don't need to "give" any holiday back - they cheerfully indulge in pagan rituals each and every year, don't they? How can this be considered an indication of the weakness or defeat of the pagan rituals, instead of their strength? Keep in mind that when Puritans attempted to return the celebration of the birth of Jesus to its roots by outlawing the Yuletide parts of Christmas (which is a significant part of them), their attempts failed both in the UK and the colonies that would later become the US.

creeper:

Here's a project for you--go ask the next 10,000 people you meet on the street what they're celebrating with the Yule log, Christmas tree, etc. and if you find ten that have any idea beyond the birth of Christ I'll join your campaign to restore the holiday to the Pagans.

My above suggestion to split the holidays in two was not the manifesto for a 'campaign', but a rhetorical device to illustrate how much of Christmas is actually another holiday.

I have no doubt that most people would happily provide lip service saying Christmas is about the birth of Christ, but if they're not observant Christians the rest of the year and come Christmas time they get together with friends and family, indulge in large meals, give presents, decorate their homes with Christmas trees, holly etc., and generally use the festive season to close off one year and get ready for the next, they are much closer to celebrating a modern variation of Yuletide (albeit unwittingly) than bowing before the Lord and Savior.

I'd also say that among kids, they heavily equate Christmas with presents first and foremost (if they were good), before dutifully reciting the whole Jesus thing. At least that's the impression I've gotten from the (Catholic) kids I've seen lately.

Finding 10 in 10,000 that see Christmas as more than celebrating the birth of Christ seems like a pretty low bar, but then I'm not asking you to join me in any such campaign; I'm saying the pagan rituals are already very much with us, but most people are not consciously aware of this.

"how much of Christmas is actually another holiday"

sounds rather like "The Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another man of that name."

Since I made it clear in my posts that the "other holiday" I was talking about was Yuletide, the correct analogy would be "The Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another man, with a different name".

creeper:

Not if no one knows anything about the paganism and everyone knows the Christianity. We don't celebrate Coronation day, even though we derive from Britain.

Creeper likes the way Holland does things. That says all you need to know about him.

Bob, what's your opinion of the way the Dutch handle Christmas and the Feast of St. Nicholas? Like it, dislike it? Why?

Orrin,

"Not if no one knows anything about the paganism and everyone knows the Christianity."

If kids today think 'what do I want for Christmas' first and 'must worship the Savior' second, I'd say the priority lies with the pagan elements, not the Christianity... even though they can all pay lip service to the story of the Nativity etc., and are not consciously aware of the pagan roots of most of the Christmas traditions.

I'm not sure which of my posts you were replying to, btw. It's pretty clear (and I don't think anyone here has disputed or will dispute this) that Christians hi-jacked Yuletide and re-labeled it as their own. So now Christianity benefits greatly from the appeal of a slew of pagan and/or secular traditions to further its own appeal. If those other elements overshadow the religious message, then so be it; you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't get the Coronation day reference. Didn't the US rather famously emancipate itself from the UK some time back? And isn't that why Coronation day is not celebrated in the US? I don't see a contradiction (as you seem to imply by "even though we derive from Britain").

BTW Bob, has Holland become the new France for you or something?

creeper:

It hijacked Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc., too. Christianity won. Just as Americans emancipated themselves fronm the Crown, Christians emancipated mankind from paganism.

"Just as Americans emancipated themselves fronm the Crown, Christians emancipated mankind from paganism."

Americans do not plaster symbols of the crown all over the place, which is how one would expect them to treat the symbol of an entity from which they have emancipated themselves - this is very much unlike the way Christianity treats pagan customs. (Let's not even get into Easter, a 'Christian' holiday in which they didn't even bother changing the name from its pagan origins.)

Christians really have no grounds for complaint if their pure religious message is overshadowed by the elements they were unable to defeat and had to co-opt in order to attain their 'victory'; what goes around comes around.

You keep saying things like "Christianity won", but what did Christianity win, exactly? Was there an agreed competition? Did the final bell ring? Is the game over and Christianity steps up to collect its medal?

What are we to make of 'none' being the religious preference growing fastest in the US?

Overshadowed?

Overshadowed.

No, I know what the word means, I'm just incredulous that you think paganism obscures Christmas, rather than vice versa.

The religion no, the rituals and symbols yes.

The rituals and symbols are Christian now.

So there'll be no more whining then if we have Santa Claus and the mistletoe and such everywhere, but no baby Jesus or nativity scene? That will be just fine because it's all Christian anyway?

Fine by me.

creeper:

I'm afraid I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. It is because Christianityy has won so completely that even those seemingly secular symbols are objected to as being over-religous. However, it is because we are a thoroughly Christian society that even the ACLU protests that it is no longer trying to ban overtly religious symbols.

In this "thoroughly Christian society" of yours, the fastest growing religious preference is 'none'.

"It is because Christianityy has won so completely that even those seemingly secular symbols are objected to as being over-religous."

I thought it was the nativity scene in particular that was in question, not Santa Claus, the tree, the holly, the mistletoe, the gift-giving, the feasting, the festive colors (red and green) etc. etc. etc.

creeper:

Pagans are converting to "none" The number of Christians is steady or growing over the past couple decades.

Actually, Orrin, I was mistaken. In percentage terms, the fastest growing religious preference is not 'none', but the grouping of pagan and neopagan religions (Wiccan, Druids etc.). Not that this matters much, since practicing pagans and neopagans will never rise beyond an insignificant fringe group, but on the other hand there is certainly no observable trend of Druids and the like throwing in the towel.

The number of Christians is steady, but only in absolute numbers, not in relation to population growth. As the population grows and the number of Christians remains steady (I think it was something like 1-2% growth in absolute numbers over 10 years), the number of Christians relative to population shrinks to the tune of a little less than 1% every year.

creeper:

It's all just mixing and matching at the fringe--there's no meaniungful difference between a pagan and an atheist. In a country where 87% are Creationists, the beliefs of the remaining fraction are unimportant except when they try to affect public policy.

Could you show me a link to a study or poll that shows 87% of Americans to be Creationists? Sounds like you're overstating the case just a tad - I don't think there are even that many self-professed Christians in the country, and I take it that Creationists are a subset of Christians.

Oh wait a minute, now that I think of it, that 87 number rings a bell. It was the title of a post of yours: "87-13"

I couldn't figure out how you conjured up those numbers back then either, seeing as the article doesn't mention them, but does feature these points:

- "Public acceptance of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is well below the 50% mark"
- "given three alternatives, only 35% say that evolution is well-supported by evidence"
- "The same number [35%] say evolution is one of many theories and not well supported by evidence. Another 29% say they don't know enough about it to say." [This alone adds up to a maximum of 35% that are Creationists while thinking they know enough to have an opinion on the matter.]
- Almost half of Americans (45%) believe that human beings "were created by God essentially as they are today (that is, without evolving) about 10,000 years ago."
- About a third of Americans are biblical literalists.

I don't see anything even close to 87% Creationists here. What exactly are you basing this on? To get to your 87%, you'd have to count as Creationists more than half the people who believe that evolution is well supported by science; at least if you're going to limit yourself to the conventional total of 100%.

"there's no meaniungful difference between a pagan and an atheist."

Maybe not to a Christian, but there sure is to a pagan or an atheist. I take your point on board though. To some people, extreme Christians and extreme Muslims don't look all that different either.

creeper:

All you have to count are those who don't believe in Scientific Evolution and those who believe that Scientific Evolution is guided by God. That leaves the 13% who sort themselves variously depending on current fads.

There's not much difference between Christians and Muslims.

"It's all just mixing and matching at the fringe--there's no meaniungful difference between a pagan and an atheist."

You did notice that I was pointing out that both the pagan/neopagan grouping and the non-religious sector were on the increase, right? Not merely migrations from one to the other that somehow cancel each other out - both are growing at the expense of the Christian numbers.

creeper:

No, I didn't notice. The number of self-identified Christians is 84% and Creationists 87%. There's been no decline.

"It's all just mixing and matching at the fringe--there's no meaniungful difference between a pagan and an atheist."

The pagan/neopagan grouping, in absolute numbers, is meaningless, though it is wrong to say they are declining - quite the opposite.

However, you did notice that I was pointing out that both the pagan/neopagan grouping and the non-religious sector were on the increase, right? Not merely migrations from one to the other that somehow cancel each other out - both are growing at the expense of the Christian numbers, which are declining relative to population.

Sorry about that double post of sorts. I was still editing and didn't notice it had already gone out in one form.

"All you have to count are those who don't believe in Scientific Evolution and those who believe that Scientific Evolution is guided by God."

Actually, you have to count those who believe in Creation; it really is that simple. Somebody who agrees with the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" can NOT automatically be counted as a Creationist. That right there is 37% of your 87%.

I notice you've also seen fit, for reasons that are unclear to me, to include the approx. 6% that did not answer the question as being Creationists.

Not just that, but among the Creationists you're including at least 22% who think that the theory of evolution is well-supported by existing evidence.

"The number of self-identified Christians is 84% and Creationists 87%. There's been no decline."

Link?

What's the difference between a belief that God Created the Universe and a belief that God used Evolution to Create the Universe?

Look very carefully at the statement they agreed with: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process."

There is no mention here of God having created either life or the universe, whether through Evolution or otherwise.

Creeper:

I have read the links to which OJ refers. He tortures the studies past the breaking point, and makes conclusions the authors themselves would not begin to support.

If he was to say that roughly 60% of Americans believe the Theory of Evolution adequately explains the material manifestations of Natural History, then he would be on solid ground. But to say that 47% of them are Creationists is to lump them in with a crowd who are completely hostile to Evolution in any way, shape, or form.

creeper:

Okay. God found the Universe and then did with it what He wanted. How is that different than Creationism?

Jeff:

No one's hostile to Evolution in every form. God evolved woman out of man.

Orrin,

"Okay. God found the Universe and then did with it what He wanted. How is that different than Creationism?"

In the rather obvious way that he did not create it.

creeper:

If you found a can of play-doh and sculpted the Venus de Milo you wouldn't consider yourself it's Creator?

Jeff,

"I have read the links to which OJ refers. He tortures the studies past the breaking point, and makes conclusions the authors themselves would not begin to support."

I'm assuming you're talking about the same links that I'm thinking of, this being the links from here to here.

To maintain on the basis of these links that 87% of the US population are Creationists involves a number of conclusions that the numbers and facts do not support in any way, as detailed above. It is entirely possible that Orrin is honestly mistaken, which can happen to anybody, of course.

Now that these problems have been pointed out to Orrin, however, if he insists on making these statements, he needs to explain himself.

Orrin,

- Why should someone who chooses not to answer the question be automatically assumed to believe in Creation?

- Why should someone who believes that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" be assumed to believe that God created this life, something that is in no way implicit in the question?

Orrin,

"If you found a can of play-doh and sculpted the Venus de Milo you wouldn't consider yourself it's Creator?"

a. not of the play-doh.

b. the phrasing of the question "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" implies that the 'play-doh' had some means of shaping itself as well.

I give up. If you and Jeff think you can square God-guided evolution with Natural Selection more power to you.

So because God gave us dominion of Creation, by definition all Evolution = Creation?

Evolutionism = Creationism?

Nifty.

To avoid shifting goalposts here, could you define Creationist and/or Creationism as you perceive it?

creeper:

You're extending the formula too far: because God Creation.

"If you and Jeff think you can square God-guided evolution with Natural Selection more power to you."

a. The word "guided" implies that God was not doing all the work, but leaves open the possibility that he was merely nudging it along as the need arose - and that leaves room for other theories.

b. Do you consider natural selection to be disproven? On what grounds?

Orrin,

"You're extending the formula too far: because God Creation."

I'm assuming this is a typo. Did you mean to say "God equals Creation"? Or perhaps "God brought about Creation"?

creeper:

Creationism merely holds that the Universe is teleological and that the purpose it serves is God's.

And to get back to some earlier questions, which go back to your "87% of the US population are Creationists" claim:

- Why should someone who chooses not to answer the question be automatically assumed to believe in Creation?

- Why should someone who believes that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" be assumed to believe that God created this life, something that is in no way implicit in the question?

"Creationism merely holds that the Universe is teleological and that the purpose it serves is God's."

Fair enough, but agreeing with the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" is not the same as agreeing with the statement "The Universe is teleological and that the purpose it serves is God's".

You want to claim those 37% as Creationist, but it doesn't add up even by your own definition.

And why on Earth are you claiming the 6% "don't know's"?

"God guided this process"

"Creationism merely holds that the Universe is teleological and that the purpose it serves is God's."

Does it not also hold that God also created either the universe and/or life?

"God guided this process"

Unfortunately you don't make it clear to what you are referring, or what point you're trying to make with this.

See also my earlier point - "The word "guided" implies that God was not doing all the work, but leaves open the possibility that he was merely nudging it along as the need arose - and that leaves room for other theories" - to which you did not respond.

"agreeing with the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" is not the same as agreeing with the statement "The Universe is teleological and that the purpose it serves is God's"."

"God guided this process"

The first statement does not state or imply that God created either life or the universe, and that is the part that 37% of the US population agreed with.

It does not mention where life came from and allows for a mixture between evolution ("developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life") and religious views ("God guided this process"). You can not, therefore, simply sweep all of these people into the Creationist bin. Let alone the 6% undecideds that you so like to claim...

Some earlier questions left open:

- Does [Creationism] not also hold that God also created either the universe and/or life?

- Do you consider natural selection to be disproven? On what grounds?

And I'll add a new one:

- Why are you adding a definition of 'Creationism' that skips the issue of Creation and concerns itself merely with the existence of God? It seems possible to square the idea of God's existence with the idea of evolution no less than it is possible to square the idea of God's existence with the idea of innocent people suffering needlessly.

creeper:

(1) "God guided this process"

(2) 4%. I included them accidentally. It should be 83% -- 13% -- 4%.

(3) Sure, God Created--even physics and Darwinism concede they've no possible explanation for the Creation of the universe or Life.

(4) No, Natural Selection can never be disproven. That's why it isn't a scientific theory. On the other hand, there is no evidence proving it.

(5) yes, it's entirely possible that God allows for Natural Selection to function within Creation and only intervenes when necessary. That would have no effect on traditional religious faith and Creationism. On the other hand, such teleology and intervention would destroy Darwinism.

(1) "God guided this process" does not equal "God created life and/or the universe".

(2) I said approx. 6% because the numbers were not clear from the various articles, due to rounding, I presume. Thank you for conceding the point.

(3) It's true that Darwinism does not posit an explanation for the creation of the universe (truly not the domain of Darwin's theories...) or of life (Darwin never claimed to explain this).

Unfortunately, Orrin, this sword cuts both ways: you can not drag the creation of either life or the universe into someone being asked about evolution and agreeing with the statement "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process". They may agree with this and still not believe that God created life or the universe. Hence there is no way you can scoop 100% of these people up into your 'Creationist' box, certainly not when other data suggest strongly that they do not believe in this.

(4) Why can natural selection never be disproven? It is a scientific theory after all. If you think it is wrong (and therefore think another, contradicting theory is right) then there must be a way to prove the other theory and thereby disprove natural selection, causing it to be dismissed or adjusted.

Why do you not think that natural selection is a scientific theory? By any conventional definition it is.

(5) "yes, it's entirely possible that God allows for Natural Selection to function within Creation and only intervenes when necessary. That would have no effect on traditional religious faith and Creationism."

If you believe in that kind of thing, yes, it is possible.

"On the other hand, such teleology and intervention would destroy Darwinism."

How so? Darwinism has gaps, not the least of which being the origin of life, which Darwin did not endeavor to explain. There is no reason why the two beliefs shouldn't compliment each other.

You can look at, say, a neo-Darwinian synthesis and explain away any gaps by saying "That's God" or by saying "We don't know what this is yet". Over time, though, the gaps are getting smaller - comforting to a scientist, unnerving to a theist.

Could you posit your definition of Creationism that does not skip the issue of Creation?

Oh yeah, and did you have a link for 84% of the US population being self-professed Christians?

(1) okay.

(2) the poll says 4%

(3) "God guided this process"

(4) Actually that's not how science works. It's no incumbent on skeptics to prove another theory but on adherents to support their own.

(5) If Natural Selection is indistinguishable from God Selects then Natural Selection crumbles.

(6) Creationism merely holds that the Universe is teleological and that the purpose it serves is God's.

(7) http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/018951.html

(1) Fine.

(2) "the poll says 4%"

Link?

(3) "God guided this process"

Erm... you already agreed that "God guided this process" does not equal "God created life and/or the universe" in (1) above, yet here you bring up this phrase again, presumably to counter "They may agree with this and still not believe that God created life or the universe. Hence there is no way you can scoop 100% of these people up into your 'Creationist' box, certainly not when other data suggest strongly that they do not believe in this."

What gives? Do you now claim that "God guided this process" does equal that "God created life and/or the universe"...?

(4) "Actually that's not how science works. It's no incumbent on skeptics to prove another theory but on adherents to support their own."

Unless, of course, the skeptic happens to disagree with the theory, in which case it is obviously incumbent on the skeptic to not just complain, but to disprove the theory or to propose an alternate one.

The whole scientific method of peer review is to have skeptics poke holes in a hypothesis until it becomes an accepted theory.

(5) "If Natural Selection is indistinguishable from God Selects then Natural Selection crumbles."

Yes, I noticed that you had this little Occam's Razor discussion with Brit about a month or so ago. So basically you can plug "plus God" into anything to smooth over anything you can't explain right off the bat, right? How very convenient.

Natural selection, however, is not indistinguishable from God Selects. If God selected, why would he take the detour of natural selection? Why cause all the needless suffering instead of just creating his beautiful design as he saw fit? Does God find it necessary to operate by trial and error? Doesn't add up; natural selection plus Occam's Razor wins out.

(6) "Creationism merely holds that the Universe is teleological and that the purpose it serves is God's."

Creationism does not concern itself with Creation. Gotcha. Can you point me to a dictionary definition that confirms this, or did you make this up yourself? I can't seem to find one that corroborates it, see.

(7) Interesting poll. Did 8% of the US population swing toward Christianity in the last 3 years? 9/11 effect? Bush effect? Margins of error running wild?

(2) The link's in the archives or likely in your own post above.

(3) yes, there's no difference between God guided this process and God Created.

(4) No. If a hypothesis is untenable it falls of itself, as does Darwinism.

(5) Yes, God operates by trial and error. The Bible is replete with instances of such, from the Fall to the Flood and so on.

(6) All Creationism requires is that Evolution be teleological and that it be God's telos.

(7) America has a loing histoiry of awakenings and we've been in the Third one for some time. The drift from Darwinism back to Creationism is of some considerable duration too.

(2) Can't find one that supports 4%, but no matter, it's a minor point.

(3) Me: "(1) "God guided this process" does not equal "God created life and/or the universe"."

You: "(1) Fine."

Me: "(3) [...] What gives? Do you now claim that "God guided this process" does equal that "God created life and/or the universe"...?"

You: "yes, there's no difference between God guided this process and God Created."

So which is it?

On the face of it, there is a very clear and significant difference, since the question posited evolution from less advanced forms of life and does not stipulate whether God initiated life or not.

If you want to count Creationists, you'll have to count the people who believe that God created life on Earth as well as Man. Other questions in the same poll have made it abundantly clear that you can not sweep all of these 37% into the Creationist box.

(4) "If a hypothesis is untenable it falls of itself, as does Darwinism."

Darwinism does not equal evolution; Darwin in his day did not have all the answers, and significant parts of his ideas have been supplanted by later theories. The modern theory of evolution, as it stands, finds widespread acceptance even among Christians, as the poll to which we keep referring clearly shows.

By the way, how does a hypothesis "fall of itself" in the absence of a proponent and a skeptic exchanging views about the hypothesis? That's what the whole process of peer review is about. So how could this be accomplished without people exchanging ideas? You need both a proponent and a skeptic; it doesn't just happen "of itself".

(5) I'll posit the opposite: "If Natural Selection is indistinguishable from God Selects then 'God Selects' crumbles."

If something is explainable as it stands, how can it be shown that God had a hand in the process? If there is nothing left to explain in a process, then adding God to it explains or accomplishes nothing. It is simply saying: "I believe in it because it is true because I believe in it."

(6) "All Creationism requires is that Evolution be teleological and that it be God's telos."

Since it's pretty clear that this is your homegrown definition, perhaps you should have a poll and ask people: "Is evolution teleological and is it by God's telos?" Anyone who says yes to that is a teleologist, a.k.a. a "Creationist by the Judd definition".

Now for some real-world definitions...

Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Creationism - the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo)

From Merriam Webster:

Creationism - a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Creationism - Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

From Encarta:

Creationism - belief that God created universe: the belief that the Bible’s account of the Creation is literally true

It's hardly surprising that there is a consensus that Creationism is related to Creation.

(4) A scientific hypothesis must be tested. Darwinism fails.

(5) Exactly.

(6) Yes.

Creeper:

Brilliant work. Unfortunately, you are dealing with a world class sophist

(5)If Natural Selection is indistinguishable from God Selects then Natural Selection crumbles.

One mark of a world class sophist is making an assertion such as the above, and completely neglecting its inverse: If God Selects is indistinguishable from Natural Selection, then God Selects crumbles. "God Selects" is only a means to spell "because" with capital letters.

(6) Creationism merely holds that the Universe is teleological and that the purpose it serves is God's.

Creationism is what Creationism does. Visit any Creationist web site and you will find OJ's invocation of "merely" to be wholly risible.

If you and Jeff think you can square God-guided evolution with Natural Selection more power to you.

More sophistry. I'll be happy to dump the Theory of Evolution the moment there is any evidence that Evolution is anything other than a recursive process wholly subject to material phenomena.

However, except for appeals to incredulity and God-of-the-gaps arguments, there is no such evidence.

And until there is, neither Creeper nor I have anything to square.

(4) The Theory of Evolution stopped being a hypothesis a long time ago.

But while we're on the subject, what is your beef with the present-day Theory of Evolution? In which particular aspects do you think it is wrong? Are you a young Earth creationist? Do you consider natural selection to be disproven? On what grounds?

(5) "Exactly."

You're agreeing with "I believe in it because it is true because I believe in it"? And then you complain that evolution is a hypothesis that can not stand?

Based on nothing more than that you happen to believe something else? You can not find factual fault with it?

(6) "Yes."

... meaning that you now agree with these definitions? Creationism does not "merely hold that the Universe is teleological and that the purpose it serves is God's" as you like to define it for your own benefit, it also very clearly holds that God created life, the universe, and everything.

And that's where you don't win yourself those 37% as being creationists. They clearly believe in evolution, with God lending a helping hand here and there. They clearly believe that Man descended from less advanced forms of life, as it says so very clearly in the statement with which they agreed. The statement does clearly not say that God created the universe.

Jeff:

Yes, but you believe in Intelligent Design:

Recursion: " Given some starting information and a rule for how to use it to get new information, the rule is then repeated using the new information"

OJ:

That isn't intelligent design, that is a definition.

You are assuming facts that aren't in evidence, and rendering the words you use devoid of meaning.

Never mind you completely disregarded the context of the sentence within which I used the term.

A definition that presumes intelligent design.

Recursion automatically presumes intelligent design?

Okay. Let's presume some supernatural force that gestated the universe to a fare thee well. Finely tuned the mass of the proton, ensured 2+2 always equals four, and along the way invented recursion.

Then passed away during the pangs of universe birth.

BTW, to remind you of the context, which makes your arbitrary invocation of ID irrelevant: I'll be happy to dump the Theory of Evolution the moment there is any evidence that Evolution is anything other than a recursive process wholly subject to material phenomena.

Recursion: " Given some starting information and a rule for how to use it to get new information, the rule is then repeated using the new information"

Good, we are making progress, since you clearly agree that Evolution--whatever the details--is a recursive process wholly subject to material phenomena.

recursion itself isn't subject to material phenomena.

Words are a valuable addition to sentence meaning; you should try reading them all sometime.

Recursion as a process subject to material phenomena.

Your sophistic dodge speaks volumes.

Recursion isn't a process subject to material phenomena.

Yes it is. Any material variation in one iteration leads to changes in subsequent iterations.

Therefore, the process is subject to material phenomena.

Jeff:

Except that it doesn't.

Except that it does. Heave up a 12,000 foot mountain range, and see what difference the rain shadow has on subsequent iterations.

Yes, that seems about the size of sudden catastrophe you need in order to get any differentiation at all.

The Panama isthmus isn't anywhere near that high.

Also, I am very interested in your definition of sudden. Your usage doesn't bear any resemblance to the word appearing in any dictionary I have at home.

No? You'd think an Evolutionist would comprehend geological time.

What is your definition of the word sudden?

Not gradual.

So how is the heaving up of a mountain range sudden?

Ask a Sri Lankan.

"Yes, that seems about the size of sudden catastrophe you need in order to get any differentiation at all."

Something as 'sudden' as an encroaching ice age should do the trick. Or an expanding desert.

Gee, that's funny. I don't see any sudden mountain range there.

The Sierra Nevada are a good example. And they were sudden how?

Jeff; "So how is the heaving up of a mountain range sudden?"

Orrin: "Ask a Sri Lankan."

Orrin, are you claiming that all mountain ranges are created at the speed of individual earthquakes? Because the kind of speed at which a mountain range is created is anything but 'sudden'.

http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/Resources/WUSTectonics/SierraBatholith/mesozoic.htm

Seems to me that the link does nothing to disprove that 'sudden' in geological terms is anything but sudden.

What am I missing here?

language

"language"

Thanks, that was enlightening.

Are you seriously contending that the Sierra Nevada batholith was created 'suddenly' in anything other than geological context (i.e. not suddenly at all to human perception, which was after all what you appeared to be getting at in your post at 12:50 a.m. above).

No, precisely in a geological context.

Then what was the point of this response of yours at 12:50 above?

"Yes, that seems about the size of sudden catastrophe you need in order to get any differentiation at all."

First you were arguing that the iterations in a recursive process were not subject to material processes, then you concede that they are, but that it takes something 'sudden', which you then concede is something that can stretch over many generations (even though it is 'sudden' in geological time).

That is a very different stance to the one you proposed earlier at 1:58 p.m. on 12/31:

"Recursion isn't a process subject to material phenomena."

- except of course that it is, but only when 'sudden' (in geological terms) changes occur - which is to say, when changes in the environment occur very very slowly (or, yes, sometimes relatively quickly, such as in the case of an earthquake, a flood etc.), and living organisms adjust to them.

creeper:

Exactly, evolution doesn't proceed by recursion.

It seems recursion is a term used almost entirely in the field of programming and mathematics, but I found Jeff's analogous use of the word apt in the context of the process we can observe around us when humans, animals and plants create offspring.

"evolution doesn't proceed by recursion."

So how does evolution proceed?

Of course you found it apt--darwinism depends on analogy to intelligent systems.

Creeper:

Please read The Art of Always Being Right, a sardonic little book, laying out 38 rhetorical tricks guaranteed to win you the argument even when you are defeated in logical discussion.

Schopenhauer's fundamental insight is, of course, anti-rationalist--that there is no objective truth involved in the argument:

"Arthur Schopenhauer
The Art of Controversy
The Basis of All Dialectic.

First of all, we must consider the essential nature of every dispute: what it is that really takes place in it.

Our opponent has stated a thesis, or we ourselves,—it is all one. There are two modes of refuting it, and two courses that we may pursue.

I. The modes are (1) ad rem, (2) ad hominem or ex concessis. That is to say: We may show either that the proposition is not in accordance with the nature of things, i.e., with absolute, objective truth; or that it is inconsistent with other statements or admissions of our opponent, i.e., with truth as it appears to him. The latter mode of arguing a question produces only a relative conviction, and makes no difference whatever to the objective truth of the matter.

II. The two courses that we may pursue are (1) the direct, and (2) the indirect refutation. The direct attacks the reason for the thesis; the indirect, its results. The direct refutation shows that the thesis is not true; the indirect, that it cannot be true.

The direct course admits of a twofold procedure. Either we may show that the reasons for the statement are false (nego majorem, minorem); or we may admit the reasons or premisses, but show that the statement does not follow from them (nego consequentiam); that is, we attack the conclusion or form of the syllogism.

The direct refutation makes use either of the diversion or of the instance.

(a) The diversion.—We accept our opponent’s proposition as true, and then show what follows from it when we bring it into connection with some other proposition acknowledged to be true. We use the two propositions as the premisses of a syllogism giving a conclusion which is manifestly false, as contradicting either the nature of things,9 or other statements of our opponent himself; that is to say, the conclusion is false either ad rem or ad hominem.10 Consequently, our opponent’s proposition must have been false; for, while true premisses can give only a true conclusion, false premisses need not always give a false one.

[Footnote 1: If it is in direct contradiction with a perfectly undoubted, truth, we have reduced our opponent’s position ad absurdum.]

[Footnote 2: Socrates, in Hippia Maj. et alias.]

(b) The instance, or the example to the contrary.—This consists in refuting the general proposition by direct reference to particular cases which are included in it in the way in which it is stated, but to which it does not apply, and by which it is therefore shown to be necessarily false.

Such is the framework or skeleton of all forms of disputation; for to this every kind of controversy may be ultimately reduced. The whole of a controversy may, however, actually proceed in the manner described, or only appear to do so; and it may be supported by genuine or spurious arguments. It is just because it is not easy to make out the truth in regard to this matter, that debates are so long and so obstinate.

Nor can we, in ordering the argument, separate actual from apparent truth, since even the disputants are not certain about it beforehand."

"... even when you are defeated in logical discussion."

All of that is wonderful. But to assert as objectively true there is no such thing as objective truth is different from debasing an argument by draining the terms used of all meaning, and particularly of the clear and proper meaning the user intended.

Logical discussion, of course, prohibits that.

The alternative you choose is too often akin to Monty Python's argument clinic.

Logic is a Monty Python skit--internally coherent but manifestly absurd from without.

"Of course you found it apt--darwinism depends on analogy to intelligent systems"

Natural selection does not depend on an analogy to intelligent systems; rather, the concept rests on the idea of a self-organizing system.

"evolution doesn't proceed by recursion."

So how does evolution proceed?

creeper:

"self-organizing"

See.

No. "Self-organizing" does not equal "intelligent".

self: "1. The total, essential, or particular being of a person; the individual: “An actor's instrument is the self” (Joan Juliet Buck). 2. The essential qualities distinguishing one person from another; individuality: “He would walk a little first along the southern walls, shed his European self, fully enter this world” (Howard Kaplan). 3. One's consciousness of one's own being or identity; the ego: “For some of us, the self's natural doubts are given in mesmerizing amplification by way of critics' negative assessments of our writing” (Joyce Carol Oates). 4. One's own interests, welfare, or advantage: thinking of self alone."

organize: "1. To put together into an orderly, functional, structured whole. 2a. To arrange in a coherent form; systematize: organized her thoughts before speaking. b. To arrange in a desired pattern or structure: “The painting is organized about a young reaper enjoying his noonday rest” (William Carlos Williams). 3. To arrange systematically for harmonious or united action: organize a strike."

The definition of "self" as a noun is not applicable here; "a self-organizing system" is synonymous with "a system that organizes itself".

itself: 1. That one identical with it: 1. Used reflexively as the direct or indirect object of a verb or the object of a preposition: The cat scratched itself. 2. Used for emphasis: The trouble is in the machine itself. 3. Used in an absolute construction: Itself no great poem, it still reveals talent.

2. Its normal or healthy condition or state: The car is acting itself again since we changed the oil.

Definition 1a applies in the case of "a system that organizes itself".

self-organizing: A network is called self-organizing if it is capable of changing its connections so as to produce useful responses for input patterns without the instruction of a smart teacher.

The point of a self-organizing system is not that it has a smart supervisor who organizes it (that would be an organized system, but not a self-organizing system), but that the sum of its inherent rules, whether intentionally put in place or not, result in it organizing itself.

Yes, "The car is acting itself again since we changed the oil."

I take it you agree with the rest then?

Yes, once someone creates the system and establishes rules then within a system it can appear to be self-organized.

That can be one kind of self-organizing system, true, but it is not the only one.

"The point of a self-organizing system is not that it has a smart supervisor who organizes it (that would be an organized system, but not a self-organizing system), but that the sum of its inherent rules, whether intentionally put in place or not, result in it organizing itself."

sure it is.

No, the rules controlling a self-organizing system can be less than obvious at the outset and only become apparent once certain limits are reached (population, for example). They do not in and of themselves automatically mean that an intelligent entity thought up and 'programmed' those rules.

Population doesn't follows any rules, for example.

Once the needs of the population outstrip the existing food supply, population is automatically reduced until it is back in line.

Such was Malthus's theory. It failed.

So once the needs of the population outstrip the existing food supply, the population just switches to eating sand, or what?

It doesn't, as a rule.

"It doesn't, as a rule."

What doesn't, "as a rule"? Population doesn't outstrip the existing food supply, as a rule?

right

Voila: population follows a rule.

See also: "Population doesn't follow any rules, for example."

Sometimes yes sometimes no isn't a rule.

How is "population doesn't outstrip the existing food supply, as a rule" "sometimes yes, sometimes no"?

"Doesn't do something, as a rule" means always no, never yes.

"Once the needs of the population outstrip the existing food supply, population is automatically reduced until it is back in line."

"Such was Malthus's theory. It failed."

Population being reduced as a result of insufficient food supply was demonstrated rather dramatically in Ireland in the years around 1850, when the population was roughly cut in half as a result of the potato famine.

If something doesn't do something as a rule then the rule isn't a rule.

creeper:

They moved.

"If something doesn't do something as a rule then the rule isn't a rule."

Obviously, yes.

So when you proposed the rule "Population doesn't outstrip the existing food supply, as a rule", that was just wrong?

No, as it says, it's not a rule.

"They moved."

You make it sound like a rather casual and painless decision, without significant obstacles.

Many migrated, many starved, many starved or died of disease while trying to emigrate. Not that it makes a difference in this discussion; both dying of starvation and migrating to 'greener pastures' in reaction to lacking food supply are simple examples of a system organizing itself.

Yes, organization is a function of intelligence, as the Irish diaspora.

See how your analogy is always to Intelligent Design? That's the only reason folks believe in Darwinism, because it's treated like I. D..

"No, as it says, it's not a rule."

Wrong though it may be, it states very clearly that it is a rule:

"Population doesn't outstrip the existing food supply, as a rule."

Then let me restate it: That population outstrips food supply is not a rule, but a Malthusian myth.

Somebody dying of starvation because of being deprived of their food supply is not an example of intelligence at work; it is a regrettable consequence of a disaster.

The 'intelligent outcome' at a more abstracted level - reduce the population in Ireland - is not the result of a central intelligence, as you imply by your reference to Intelligent Design, but the result of many smaller events - hence a self-organizing system with no central intelligence or consciousness.

Well, if you don't believe human organizations involve intelligence then I can't help you.

To call a rule a myth is one thing; to call its opposite a rule is something very different altogether.

Anyway, I'm glad you're conceding the point.

The opposite is not a rule either. There is no rule. That's the only rule.

"Well, if you don't believe human organizations involve intelligence then I can't help you."

That's rather a generalized statement you're attempting to pin on me there, Orrin.

I was talking about a self-organizing system that happened to feature humans; which 'human organization' are you talking about?

society

"The opposite is not a rule either. There is no rule. That's the only rule."

Yes, you've already conceded your mistake.

Hardly a mistake, rather a demonstration that self-organization requires a Self.

'Society' sadly enough at the time contributed to their fate.

Their options were simple: starve, move, or die trying to move. Those were the options in place, and an animal would think very similarly; following them was what led to the system, at a higher level, organizing itself.

The mistake is at 10:37 a.m. above.

It is not "a demonstration that self-organization requires a Self". You attempted that a few posts before (at 12:56 a.m.), but the self in self-organizing is not a noun; it signifies something that organizes itself, which does not require a conscious Self.

"think"

Yes, that's the point, it does require a self, because absent one there are no rules.

You're confusing thinking on a low level with the supposed consciousness of the entire system.

In the example we were talking about above, the self-organizing system goes through a process that starts out with a certain number of organisms in certain places. Crisis occurs as there are insufficient resources to feed those organisms in the locations where they are. The options that those organisms perceive (which is actually the "think" you chose to highlight - which in turn does not mean that the system as a whole is consciously "thinking") are simple and would be similar for an animal in the same circumstances. The process that the system as a whole goes through is not conscious thought.

At the end of the crisis, the system has organized itself into a different state - without conscious thought on the part of the 'system', even though some of the individual components have used intelligence in tackling the options they perceived before them.

"Yes, that's the point, it does require a self, because absent one there are no rules."

When a component decides that if it is to survive, it must move to find food, those rules do not need to be dictated to the component by the system by an intelligent entity at a higher level. Those rules just are, and are natural laws of survival. Don't eat: die. Can't find food: can't eat. Must find food, etc.

There are all kinds of rules that do not require a "self" to define them. If you walk off the edge of a cliff and fall a long distance onto a surface of rock, you will die. No conscious entity needs to spell that out or dictate it for it to be true.

"you walk"

As always you invoke consciousness

you wha'?

You choose to deflect once again to any consciousness mentioned at a lower level of the system, which is not identical to any claimed 'consciousness' or 'intelligence' of the system as a whole.

The consequences to a human being of falling from a great height onto a rock surface require no dictation from a conscious self in order to be true. That was the point of that paragraph.

You choose to ignore that your systems all depend on a series of conscious decisions.

Dying of starvation is not a conscious decision, and yet it is one of the ways in which the system as a whole organizes itself.

So: no, this system does not depend solely on a series of conscious decisions.

Not that it matters, because once again you're confusing the levels. Even if all the low-level processes depend on conscious thought, it does not mean that the larger self-organizing system that they form comprises a conscious intelligence.

On the simplest level, think of the prisoner's dilemma in game theory; on another level, think of intelligent traders partaking in an ideal stock exchange. They are intelligent entities, but the self-organizing system in which they take part does not constitute a conscious, intelligent entity.

It's not a conscious intelligence--it requires such.

"That population outstrips food supply is not a rule, but a Malthusian myth."

A statement spoken in pure ignorance of the population dynamics of certain animals with large broods and short reproduction cycles.

Rabbits, for instance. Rats, for another. Both are prone to extreme boom and bust cycles, and the bust didn't come from having too much to eat.

Creeper:

Give it up. You are dealing with someone who has absolutely no respect for reasoned argument. Somewhere far above, OJ maintains mountain ranges appear suddenly. In certain time scales they do. But with respect to the time scale under discussion--recursion, where the generation duration of some organism is the cycle time--mountain ranges arise imperceptibly.

Someone with respect for reasoned argument will use terms within their context. Selecting geologic eras to define "sudden" when the context is the life span of organisms just doesn't wash.

I haven't seen your callsign until relatively recently, so you might have missed an article by an accomplished conservative intellectual, Albert Jay Nock (I'm terrible with names, I hope I am not mangling it). In that article, Mr. Nock refers to a small portion of society as "the remnant."

By that he means those few people who have the rare combination of intellect, motivation, and knowledge to think critically about complex issues.

I would put virtually everyone that posts here in that category--the comment space here is a very rarified atmosphere.

The reason I bring this up is that the people who are least likely to be taken in by such rhetorical chicanery are precisely those who post here.

So why OJ relentlessly engages in such is a mystery to me. But I finally learned, after a prolonged discussion where I was faced with a nonsensical mishmash of deduction, induction and circularity, I determined that whatever goal OJ has in mind on certain subjects, reasoned argument is not it.

I recommend you do what I am attempting--remember that discussions like this only serve to pulse the Site Meter.

Jeff:

Where are the corpses?

"It's not a conscious intelligence--it requires such."

Weather is a self-organizing system that does not require conscious intelligence.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Creeper:

An argument is a connected series of propositions intended to establish a conclusion.

What OJ is engaging in is the automatic gainsaying of anything the other side says.

To what end, other than engendering annoyance, is a singular mystery.

Jeff:

Actually, since it's my post that's what you're doing.

Orrin,

"Actually, since it's my post that's what you're doing."

I hate to point this out, but the discussion has drifted a little from the original post... something about Christmas being under attack?

I don't see any examples above of Jeff automatically negating that post. He didn't even join in until we had drifted into discussing Creationism.

joined in

OJ:

I'm pretty certain ownership of the post doesn't have very much to do with conduct of the discussion.

Having pretty much just observed, Creeper is attempting to pose an argument, you are gainsaying.

Which would still be true if Creeper owned the post.

Yes, if he were posing I'd be opposing. I'm posing--you two are opposing.

Orrin,

I think it's fair to say that this discussion has gone through a variety of topics (a few of which have nothing to do with the original post about Christmas being under threat), and that at various times you posed and I opposed, and on some occasions I posed and you opposed.

Example of a point that you posed and I opposed: "87% of the US population is Creationist."

Example of a point that I posed and you opposed: "Since we don't really know when Jesus was born, let's move the celebration of his birth to some other date."