EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: There’s ‘not a clean-cut division’ between religion and science.
By on Dec 8th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: There’s ‘not a clean-cut division’ between religion and science.
A Philadelphia Inquirer profile of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson this weekend reveals that the chief steward of our environmental protection is unwilling — or unable — to separate religion from science. The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson notes that, when questioned by reporters, Stephen Johnson admitted he does not see a “clean-cut division” between the two:
It’s not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there’s theistic or God-controlled evolution and there’s variations on all those themes.
Johnson’s approach at EPA has been marked by putting his faith in corporate polluters. This past summer, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called on him to resign. Read more at the Wonk Room.
UpdateIn an interview with ABC’s Nightline that will air tonight, President Bush expresses a similar sentiment as Stephen Johnson:
MCFADDEN: So you can read the Bible and not take it literally. I mean you can -- it's not inconsistent to love the Bible and believe in evolution, say. BUSH: Yeah, I mean, I do. I mean, evolution is an interesting subject. I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life and ... MCFADDEN: But do you believe in it? BUSH: That God created the world, I do, yeah. MCFADDEN: But what about ... BUSH: Well, I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
124 Responses to “EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: There’s ‘not a clean-cut division’ between religion and science.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
What a dangerous moron!!
December 8th, 2008 at 5:51 pmWell other than that part about talking snakes and two of everything upon a boat...
December 8th, 2008 at 5:51 pmWho among the Dims voted to confirm this reeking pile of theo-craptic superstition and delusion?
Exactly HOW is someone who is incapable of making any meaningful distinction to rule rationally on matters where some vision of 'god's will' might interfere with the sane management of the fukcing planet? And who voted to confirm him?
December 8th, 2008 at 5:58 pmExcept that one requires the systematic testing of a hypothesis through observable facts and repeatable events and the other requires the exact opposite or whatchacallit? 'faith'... yeah, it's real hard to draw a distinction.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pmJesus Hussein Christ!
No dipshit, there's a bright line between religion and science. No overlap. And religion has NO place in government.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:03 pmAfter 8 years of killing, torturing, rendering, and lying, George Bush still believes in the supernatural, thinks gawd elected him, and is thankful for gawd for telling him to attack Iraq to line the deep pockets of his corporate whores.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pmGawd created America and the US Constitution too. Amazing. Spit.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pmThis guy has an B.A. in biology and a masters in pathology. He spent 27 years as a career employee with the EPA, before his nomination. I think there was great hope that he would be force of good within the EPA since he was the first scientist that ever headed that agency. However, there was controversy from the beginning because of his support for using human subjects in experiments regarding pesticides (including the CHEERS program which was directed at kids), and an apparent conflict of interest because the majority of funding for the program came from the chemical industry itself. I remember that a secret hold was put on his nomination until he cancelled the CHEERS program. He's been a huge disappointment. An open letter was published last Feb. by the unions that represented most of the EPA professional staff to Stephen's, stating that he had ignored the EPA's official Principles of Scientific Integrity in advancing the Bush Administration positions on a variety of environmental issues, including pesticide regulation, mercury emissions, and greenhouse gases. I don't really care if he believes in theistic evolution, many people do (including myself). But that belief didn't lead to his ignoring the science around clear environmental dangers. That was a sell-out based on politics, period.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:09 pmI have faith and fact that dubyah is the worst president in history.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:09 pmEPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: There’s ‘not a clear-cut division’ between religion and science
Unless you are a person with a functioning brain....
December 8th, 2008 at 6:09 pm"I'm just a simple president."
Haunting words to say the least. Although I'd be inclined to add the letters 'ton' onto the end of the word simple.
Just saying . . .
December 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pmHe's a freaking Mormon. What do you expect?
December 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pmgeorge must have been high.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:11 pmThe evolution of biblical hearsay and utter nonsense under this administration, when scientific approaches are needed is what does make God or any other deities cry.
BTW...the almighty dollar wasn't God last time I checked! And sacrificing soldiers for political ideals is something that is wholly un-Christian.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pmStephen Johnson is clearly a moron...religion does that to animals.
Soon he will be Obama-fired and gone. Good. Go away you small Johnson.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pmThe difference between religion and science is that scientific theories are testable, religious theories are not (which is why it requires faith).
December 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pmJudging from the photo, I'd say there's a hadrosaur in Johnson's woodpile..
December 8th, 2008 at 6:14 pmIs it a coincidence that he said "clean cut" as opposed to "clear cut"?
December 8th, 2008 at 6:15 pmAnd magic underwear comes in five fruit colors!
One word tells all about morons like Johnson and Chimpy - FOSSIL.
Get a grip, face FACTS or go out and wander in Dobson land.....to these morons, the decision was already made....
December 8th, 2008 at 6:17 pmBUSH: I'm just a simple president.
Please, everyone remember. We never again want a president who is simple.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:18 pmThe life, actions and words of GW Botch are collective proof positive that there IS NO GOD.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:21 pmWhat a fool! We can NEVER EVER let these people run anything in this country. They need to be ground deep into the dirt. Help them with nothing. Tolerate nothing about them. Fight them . . . hrd.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:21 pm“clean cut” as opposed to “clear cut”?
Clear cut is chopping everything down, clean cut is taking the leaves too.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:23 pm;)
What is it when you dump toxic chemicals after cutting everything down?
December 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pmFWIW, Bush's statement doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me (except for the slip about "creating the earth"--the formation of planets is a natural process). I know many religious people who share a similar view, that God "got the ball rolling" with the Big Bang or what have you, and didn't interfere. Stephen Johnson, on the other hand...
December 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pmWhat is it when you dump toxic chemicals after cutting everything down?
Big Business.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:28 pm"I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution"
I don't think bit is gonna like this part at all...
December 8th, 2008 at 6:30 pmJohnson: "It’s not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there’s theistic or God-controlled evolution and there’s variations on all those themes."
This in itself is a huge leap in definition, compared to even a decade ago. They are at least admitting that evolution is to be considered.
The only fuzzy conglomeration I'm aware of is Scientology, a rather recently fabricated "religion". It seems to have little basis in science, considerable fiction perhaps, but then, what world religion doesn't?
December 8th, 2008 at 6:36 pmIt's incredibly dualistic to claim to believe in (theistic) evolution but still push pure, unadulterated creationism. The two are absolutely incompatible.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pmGod created Evolution, now please move along.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pm"I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president."
George: "Let's keep it simple, OK? I like goats, pet ones, you know, to pet, right? And then there's people, and people are complicated, see, so let's just have goats to pet, and people. Some people, just not a lot of complicated ones, OK?"
December 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pmAlso, no pun intended on the dualism, I swear ;)
December 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pmBush: But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.
No, it's NOT MYSTERIOUS, it's SCIENTIFIC! What's MYSTERIOUS is how IDIOTS like BUSH prefer to believe FAIRY TALES over SCIENTIFIC FACTS! MORONS!
December 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm"I think that God created the earth" - And here is another example why people like Bush should never, ever be allowed in positions of responsibility.
But I guess it takes more than two brain cells to use science.
Why on why do these people believe in what ancient goat herders believed?
December 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pmshoeless Says:
What is it when you dump toxic chemicals after cutting everything down?
Mountaintop Removal
December 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pmI just keep telling myself, that in about 40 days these idiots will be out of jobs. Doesn't erase the last 8 years, but it's a damn good start.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm... I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.
i dunno... whether you agree or not, don't you think that might be one of the best put together sentences he's spoken without a script? i give him kudos for that much...
as to his belief, his "think", he's got every right to that...
December 8th, 2008 at 7:07 pmExcept you don't need religion to serve as EPA administrator. Science is critical.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:08 pmGeorge Bush's other gawd....
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/images/magic8ball.jpg
Embarrassing. Simply embarrassing!
December 8th, 2008 at 7:11 pmRegardless of your confusion over the origin of life, Mr. Johnson, your job, which you accepted, is to protect the environment for the life and natural systems which happen to exist.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pmPonder your existence in your free time, or resign.
Nevar Says:
Johnson: “It’s not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there’s theistic or God-controlled evolution and there’s variations on all those themes.”
This in itself is a huge leap in definition, compared to even a decade ago. They are at least admitting that evolution is to be considered.
Y'know, that is an excellent point. I remember back in the late 90's Pope John Paul came out and said that religion and evolution could co-exist and I thought to myself what a sea-change that was. Ironically, the same Papal Bull admitted the Church had been wrong to persecute Galileo for his heliocentric views!
I have a friend from Germany who says this is not a controversy in European schools. I have never understood what the big deal about this is. Evolution in science class, Religion in social studies, done.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pm"I'm just a simple president."
With a strong emphasis on the word 'simple'.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pmKeltoi at Night Says: "I remember back in the late 90’s Pope John Paul came out and said that religion and evolution could co-exist and I thought to myself what a sea-change that was."
It seems it was about that same time period that the phrase intelligent design came into usage. I think we are simply saddled with that stubborn 28% that doesn't know, and doesn't want to know. Or shall I say doesn't think, and doesn't want to think.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pmSick, crazy, mindless chimp.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pmWith banners waving we step back from sense and science along with the accompanying hallelujah chorus.
For some reason anyone claiming to be a right thinking religious person, must claim that the science of evolution is bogus. They think that belief in the bible must mean you cannot believe in evolution. What they do is diminish the omnipotence and power of their own God. I myself have always believed that if indeed a supreme being created this whole thing, then surely he must be smart enough to make it come about any way he sees fit.
There is NOTHING in the Bible that says anything about the fallacy of evolution. Surely God would be prophetic enough to see what was coming in our lifetime and make it known to be real or not. The absolute genius of creation that marches in steps from one species to all species is one of those miracles that make it believable.
As for me, I think religion is good for one thing. Putting your brain on hold, living in fear of death or anything not immediately understood, and fostering war and intolerance. It is a violent, anti-woman book. It is a wonderful collection of fairy tales written at a time when there were almost no books, and very few could read. Children taught the Dick and Jane books of that time. And still it does have something. Just not what the right wing, theocratic, imbeciles want all us us to believe. Religion does not have to be anti/thought. It only seems that the fearful and the nutty want it to be that way.
And this man from the EPA is part of the problem. Like Bush who forced the scientists at the EPA to change many of their findings of global warming and other subjects because they did not fit the creationist theory. It is alright to lie and subvert in the name of religion I guess.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:35 pm"...or watch the poodle do what he do?"
I guess your in front of a mirror?
December 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm"I'm just a simple president."
--George W. Bush
Bush is a total F**KTARD!
December 8th, 2008 at 7:39 pmLushInterior Says:
Evolution is a religion. I believe that the dinosaurs appeared out of thin air at some indeterminate time….by the way my neighbor just gave my poodle some Viagra ……..should I kick his ass or watch the poodle do what he do?
Looks like someone fell off his meds again!
December 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pmjust watch the damn poodle quietly please...
December 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pmYeah, sure, 'science' and 'religon' are practically interchangeable. I often catch myself calling for that 'ol' time science', praying I do the right calculations for the design, cursing 'Science damn'.
Talking about evolution he's asked if he believes in it, and his answer is that God created the earth. Put him down for a 'no'.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pmThis reminds me of an old George Carlin bit (WINO Radio) that began like this:
"Good evening sports fans, this is Biff Barf with the Biff Barf sportlight spotlight. I call 'em the way I see 'em and if I don't see 'em, I make 'em up!"
These people always just make up whatever justification they need to do or believe whatever they want. That God exists (to them) is the truth. A fossil in a rock is something else. A trick (because God may need to test your faith from time to time) or maybe the rock is only a couple of thousand years old. Lightning, volcanic eruptions, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. were all once explained as the wrath of an angry god. Today, we know the truth regarding these realities and countless others.
Government and the agencies within it must be run based on truth and reality, not whimsy and conjecture.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pmYears ago there'd be news stories about fundamentalist parents refusing medical treatment of their child and saying 'God would heal'. It seems to me to be the same logic applied literally on a global scale. 'We don't need to regulate chemicals known to be harmful: God will take care of it.'
Scientific proof and religion are compatible until one disproves the other. When has religion ever disproved science?
December 8th, 2008 at 8:08 pmLet me summarize the President's answer: Fire bad!
December 8th, 2008 at 8:52 pmYou see, the President is just a simple caveman.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:52 pmAnother circular dada moment from bush: ghandi shaking hands with hitler(?)
December 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pmWell, there's your problem right there.
Clearly, "evolution" IS random.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:53 pmjahzilla, not sure if that was serious but evolution has a random component (certain mutations) but is generally fairly predictable.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:07 pmI wouldn't get too bent out of shape since all he's saying is some theists believe in evolution ans some scientists believe in god. Scientists like Ken Miller are some of the strongest defenders of evolution by natural selection, even though he is what is technically termed a "theistic evolutionist". There are theologians like Elizabeth Johnson who believe "God uses random genetic mutations to ensure variety, resilience, novelty and freedom in the world." As far as environmental regulation goes, it's a red herring, and Stephen Johnson sucks because of his policy decisions not his religion.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:19 pmArgh - "ans" should be "and".
December 8th, 2008 at 10:20 pmWhat is "the mystery of life", exactly? Empty phrases are really getting oppressive.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:22 pmThis reminds me of James Watt...
Bush is a creotard moron. Sam Harris had something to say about that...
December 8th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I don't think GWB believes in anything he says - he was just always trying to soothe the wacky fundies. After all he is a lying, war mongering criminal who snorts coke and gets drunk. But he's got to keep the fundies believing the crap that allows people like him to control them - and he's got to bend over for his corporate masters. Does GWB have a spiritual bone in his body? I think not.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:55 pmGreen, I don't think GWB knows what he is thinking or saying. I am betting he can't wait for 1/20 so he can pop open a Milwaukee's Beast.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:07 pmzy, he is saying science and religion are on the same footing. He should NOT be in a position of scientific authority.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:08 pmKeltoi at Night Says:
Nevar Says:
Johnson: “It’s not a clean-cut division. If you have studied at all creationism vs. evolution, there’s theistic or God-controlled evolution and there’s variations on all those themes.”
This in itself is a huge leap in definition, compared to even a decade ago. They are at least admitting that evolution is to be considered.
Y’know, that is an excellent point. I remember back in the late 90’s Pope John Paul came out and said that religion and evolution could co-exist and I thought to myself what a sea-change that was. Ironically, the same Papal Bull admitted the Church had been wrong to persecute Galileo for his heliocentric views!
I have a friend from Germany who says this is not a controversy in European schools. I have never understood what the big deal about this is. Evolution in science class, Religion in social studies, done.
*
you have a friend?
^
December 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pmThe pope saying evolution is compatible with the belief in god does NOT mean creationism is compatibly with science and it should be nowhere near a science class.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:20 pmLeave him alone, the man can walk on mercury.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:37 pmHeh, Arctic, my state won the Mercury fight once against the Fed and had to fight the same fight shortly after.
/Get out Bush...now.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:40 pmLushInterior Says:
LushMoron is a stupid and pathetic cretin. He only comes here to annoy us because he knows he is FAR too ignorant to engage in a reasonable conversation. He apparantly never learned that ignorant, brainwashed and pathetic are no way to go through life.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:52 pmIs it too late to say "What a f uckwit?"
December 9th, 2008 at 12:01 amIs Lush the best troll you have now? If so...wow, that is weak.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:07 amDuckphup, thanks for the James Watt quote. I wanted to strangle that ahole with my bare hands when I was 8.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:10 amre: #8 Impeachetal -
John does have a BA . . . but from Wonk we find:
"Johnson — not a Ph.D. scientist — received his bachelor of arts degree in biology from Taylor University, “an evangelical, interdenominational covenant community committed to advancing life-long learning and ministering the redemptive love of Jesus Christ to a world in need.” His Taylor adviser, biology professor Timothy Burkholder told the Inquirer that the school teaches a religion-inflected view of evolution" (should that have been "religion-INFECTED view"?)
sorta' kinda like saying Regent produces great government lawyers . . .
December 9th, 2008 at 12:17 amOhhh, Jess, thought you said Baylor for a minute...
December 9th, 2008 at 12:18 amWell, there is "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra, but I don't think that's what Johnson's talking about.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:19 amLOL, a BA in Biology. Who would take a BA instead of a BS when going into Bio?
December 9th, 2008 at 12:20 amHopefully he is talking about the Tao of Steve.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:20 amLeave him alone, the man believes he can drink arsenic.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:21 amWell, he can. I suggest he do so, as well.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:22 amLeave him alone, god created lead poisoning.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:37 amGo doesn't care about blacks either!
December 9th, 2008 at 12:46 am.
When governments insist on governing from the point of absolutism, they cease to be a democracy that is representative of the populace in it's diversity. The good of a many can get lost to righteousness of the theism.
Now, how do theists intend to prove their god(s) are the correct Almighty and what if the work of the Almighty is simply acts of evolution linked together, thus giving the impression of a cause and effect? Or say, measuring a person's Soul(Ht. Wt.)?
.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:55 amzy wrote I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape since all he’s saying is some theists believe in evolution ans some scientists believe in god. Scientists like Ken Miller are some of the strongest defenders of evolution by natural selection, even though he is what is technically termed a “theistic evolutionist”.
zy, it's not really correct to call Ken Miller a theistic evolutionist because he keeps his religious beliefs completely separate from his science career. I think he would be insulted by your "theistic evolutionist" label. I think any competent biologist, whether or not he was religious, would be insulted by the adjective theistic. Theism can only pollute science. No respectable scientist would ever want that adjective associated with his name.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:29 amI assume the creationist retard, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, will be fired as soon as possible by President Obama. Obama is pro-science. I'm certain he will not tolerate the stupidity of the magical creation belief in his administration.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:33 am>Is it too late to say “What a f uckwit?”
Its never too late..
December 9th, 2008 at 2:38 amI propose the formation of The Church of the Holy Algorithm, where we believe in the God of Binary Code. People could worship at the Holy Developer Workstation.
We would have a cabinet level government official who would offer support for the concept that there is no clear line between religion and science. It would be the best of both worlds: worshiping science.
The President of the United States supports the idea. (Obviously. Isn't the meaning of what he says always clear as day?)
December 9th, 2008 at 4:03 amI propose the Obama raise the EPA to cabinet level. Then the U.S. would have a Secretary of the Environment and send a real message to the world that it is serious about environmental matters. That would be evolution.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:17 amWhat most would've done with the education he received. What a total waste of time and money. He's "simple" all right.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:19 amJohnson: Who is this idiot?
Bush: We already know which idiot this is.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:19 amAnd they wonder why the U.S. gets laughed at, all while the rest of the world moves forward.
If Palin had been elected, we would've heard this sh*t amped up on a much larger scale. Thank Republican Jesus her cute little a** (which so deperately needs a loving slap) got sent packing for Alaska!
Separation of church and state. It's absolutely crucial. If you intermingle the two, you have a theocracy. Much like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:16 amtablogloid Says:
I propose the Obama raise the EPA to cabinet level. Then the U.S. would have a Secretary of the Environment and send a real message to the world that it is serious about environmental matters. That would be evolution.
I understand Obama actually is considering raising it to a cabinet level. I don't know who he will wind up nominating as EPA administrator yet though. At one time, I know that Robert F. Kennedy was on his short list for the position. He would be my definite choice.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:41 amI don't know about anyone else, but these people scare the stuffing out of me.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:42 amI think y'all are wrongheaded on this one. We shouldn't be rejecting attempts to make religion and science play nice. This isn't some mutually exclusive choice whereby one is an enlightened atheist or a luddite believer in magic. We should be doing more to make people feel comfortable recognizing both the credibility of science and the importance of faith as a way to give meaning to one's life and make sense of one's place in the world. And this isn't just me (who, incidentally, is a secular humanist)--Darwin uses the same argumentative tactic in the Origin, in order to make his theory palatable to a heavily religious audience.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:57 amGL2814 Says:
And they wonder why the U.S. gets laughed at, all while the rest of the world moves forward.
If you intermingle the two, you have a theocracy. Much like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Not at all. You see, the christian American theocracy would be based on the christian bible, not the koran, and christians are all just, good, and righteous. Only the foul devil's minions, like the gays, and the non-christians, and the scientists would be criminalized, but to destroy the devil's minions is holy work in the name of GOD (tm), so that work is righteous.
S N A R K
Organized religion in all instances is political in nature and purpose. Personal religious beliefs are personal, and should remain so (and NOT be brought into any society, nor interfered with by society as long as those beliefs do not harm others of the society or inhibit others from exercising their own personal beliefs).
Organized religion is a vehicle to apologize for hate and actions based on hate and prejudice. Organized religion is closed-minded and exclusive, and has no value or use in intellectual inquiry. Facts are that organized religions discourage and despise intellectual inquiry, and thus are incompatable with such endeavors.
You can hold religious beliefs and still be intellectually curious, but you can not BASE intellectual inquiry upon religious beliefs, as those beliefs presuppose answers without inquiry.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:04 amThere's not a clean cut division between being an idiotic fool and being George W Bush.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:12 amWe must never again allow people like this to be in charge of government agencies whose mission is a scientific one.
Why do we not expect that the best and brightest among us serve in such positions? Why doesn't Congress and the President require that the head of the EPA have an actual science background?
Religion and science are two completely separate realms. They do not overlap; there is no room for the supernatural in science.
"God did it" is not a sufficient explanation.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:13 amdoxastic Says:
Darwin uses the same argumentative tactic in the Origin, in order to make his theory palatable to a heavily religious audience.
Actually a great number of authors of various kinds have had to kowtow to the religious right. That does not mean that it is correct. If Darwin would have felt safe, and that he would have his research actually published without ANY kowtow to the religious right would he have included the nods and winks to religion? Possibly not. That authors felt that they had to do so does not mean that thaey beleved so.
However, I do agree that personal religious beliefs do not exclude scientific inquiry, and vice-versa. Note, though, that it was because of the organized religions that this false dichotomy arose. Galileo was merely confined for the rest of his life, but that was ONLY because he was respected and had political friends. There were many other scientists/researchers of his time who, not having political allies, were burned alive (or tortured, etc.) for saying things that did not agree with the stated church policy. The people who FRAMED the science/religion debate as being worthy of debate were the religious people, not the scientists (who were, for the most part, very religious people in those early days).
December 9th, 2008 at 9:13 amIs Bush ignorant because he is religious or is he religious because he is ignorant? Or is it just another facet of his lazy ass nature? God told me to invade Iraq is a very easy, simple answer to a complex problem.
"Why do horses only have one hoof mommy?" Because God made them that way sweetie-pie.
"Why is the sky blue Mommy?" Because God made it that way, sugar plum.
"Why does my sister have to walk with crutches Mommy" Because God told Bush to flush blastocysts down the toilet instead of allowing stem cell research snookums.
Simple answers for simple Presidents.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:38 amWe define thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to the corner store without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued, 'either-or' logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can't use any sort of logic and will discard an observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exist. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.
For explanations of a universe that confuses him he seizes onto numerology, astrology, hysterical religions, and other fancy ways to go crazy. Having accepted such glorified nonsense, facts make no impression on him, even if at the cost of his own life. Joe, one of the hardest things to believe is the abysmal depth of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein, "Gulf"
December 9th, 2008 at 9:47 amThanks mmcnary1.
Is that McNary Arizona, McNary Louisiana, or just plain McNary as a name?
December 9th, 2008 at 10:09 amIt's McNary in MO.
I switched userids.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:19 amThis man understands neither religion nor science
December 9th, 2008 at 10:20 amBTW - That quote was taken from
http://www.quotableheinlein.com/html/home.html
December 9th, 2008 at 10:20 amFor those willing to consider a few facts about science and religion, evolutionary theory has never produced evidence of one species turning to another. True enough that there are adaptations within a species (evidence of a marvelous design), but never has science observed a cat turning into a dog for example. It just doesn't happen, yet science claims that "one day" we will observe it. We just have to have faith. Also, science cannot explain the evolution of sexes. It tells us that we have to have faith that evolution of species occurs once every few million years, though there is no proof. Further, on the unconceivably rare occasion that one species evolves into another, we have to have faith that the event that happens once in millions of years has to occur twice, in the same geographic spot on the vast earth, in at least one male and at least one female. So, the evolution has to occur at the same time, in the same spot, from the same species, into the same species so that they are compatible, yet opposite sexually. These two miraculously new same but opposite species then have to find a new food source compatible with their bodies so that they can live long enough to happen upon one another and figure out how to mate with their new bodies. Otherwise, the species ends with its first evolution and cannot be carried forward. Wow, it takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe in something like that without any kind of supporting evidence, and there are many such holes in the scientific theories (like the fact that evolution just starts and stops at a whim, an explanation for why we haven't been able to observe it). I for one am not willing to put that much faith in such "happenstance" science. After all, scientists are people just like us, subject to the same mistakes and misunderstandings that we are. In fact, I read almost daily about how science is constanly evolving, because scientists are constantly discovering through new research that they really didn't understand things they thought they once did. I also read about how a majority of astronomers and many other scientists, who once didn't, now hold deep beliefs in God because of their observations of such an orderly rather than chaotic creation. On the other side, I find that Scriptures don't change at all. They remain constant and unwavering. I also read regularly how archaeology is constantly finding new discoveries that lend further proof confirming statements in the Bible. I also read regularly prophecies of the Bible that came true when, where, and how the Bible said they would. Further, I read daily about how prophecies the Bible said would happen are beginning to happen even today. To avid readers of the Scriptures, it has been known since WWII (when Europe was in ashes) that Europe would unite under a strong German influence and become a world dominating force, while the United States, Britain, and other Anglo-Saxon people would experience a rapid decline from their prominent spot in history, a decline that is only beginning and will become far worse while we are distracted with the war on terror. It has been known, because it was revealed through the Scriptures. Just as the holes in scientific theory are many, varied, and constantly changing, the proofs of the Bible are many, evident, and constant. So, I prefer to place my "faith" in the latter. It just seems a lot less risky, especially since it is so often confirmed by science. Wow! Isn't that ironic. Then again, the Scriptures do say that "the wisdom of this world is follishness with God (I Corinthians 3:19).
Finally, if I were a gambling man (I am not), I would wager that most of you writing so critically of religion will be out buying Christmas gifts this month. How hypocritical! On the other hand, real Christians don't observe that holiday. Rather, they observe those things found in the Scriptures. Just food for thought.
For those few who would, there is no need to send juvenile replies. I will not be wasting my time to come back and view them, nor would I respond any further if I did. I am just writing this to encourage a little research and critical thinking into some alternative viewpoints for those who don't already know everything. I think you might be surprised what you may find once you step out of the force-fed comfort zone that government controlled public education creates for us. I know I was.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:04 amI dont think Bushs statement is all that unreasonable. Its not like hes saying:
"Evolution is just a theory. Another interesting theory is intelligent design. Now I personally believe the Bible is the word of God and the Bible says He created the world in 6 days and then he took a nap."
In fact I would imagine Obama would say something similar. Although he would put it with more eloquence and hopefully not seem so awkwardly reluctant as Bush to accept the theory of Evolution
December 9th, 2008 at 11:38 amWell, several have stated that Bush's statement of his personal belief is not unreasonable, or at least it is his to own without reprisal. And while we have Bush quoted above, the thread topic is Johnson's ABSOLUTE statement (not framed as "his belief", but as if it were a FACT) that there is not a clean cut between science and religion, and that stated in regard to a SECUALR GOVERMENTAL position. While this may be true in his mind, and in the minds of some other people, such people should not be in such secualr governemtnal positions. They can work for think tanks that agree, periodicals that meld science and religion, they can write books. But when policy decisions are made utilizing any one religious dogma, which is what this conflation comes down to, then the government is not only selecting, but forcing the populace to accept that dogma.
The defenders of this man's thinking would be 180 degrees opposite in their opinion if this were a follower of Islam presenting a mix of science and Islamic religion. Or any other religion aside from christianity. Defense of this kind of mixture of policy and religion ONLY occurs because the defending person is a believer in that religion.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pmAnd Mr/Ms ginsu -- you have the right to come and post once, never to return. However, it displays that you are not able to sustain a discussion of your argument. While that alone does not invalidate the argument, it does raise immediate questions as to the soundness of that argument. However, mr/ms ginsu, you display a trait I regularly encounter with many people who call themselves religious: that is to state your belief, and then flee from any discussion. That is often because of an inability to defend the argument -- usually because the argument is not one derived from self-examination, but rememebered from having been told that this is what to believe. And, in truth, that was the most interesting part of that post -- the admitted flight from discussion. I would not have been critical if the excuse was that you had no more time today, or even that you'd TRY to check in later (no promises). Those I can empathise with. But to step into an argument, refute others in the discussion, and then patently admit to cutting and running.... I can't respect that.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:46 pmginsu: "For those willing to consider a few facts about science and religion, evolutionary theory has never produced evidence of one species turning to another."
That's a gross distortion. There are scores of fossil evidence showing "bridge" characteristics displayed between one form and another - feathers on dinosours, feet and rudimentary lungs on fish; even the ability of higher primates to make and use rudimentary tools.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:49 pmginsu, your religion-centric view of the nature of science is simply wrong. You do not need "faith" to understand or accept almost any tenet of science. I might be willing to agree that at this time one needs to have a modicum of "faith" to accept certain new concepts in quantum physics, but that "faith" is not in God, but in the ability scientists to theorize unvelievably complicated possibilities about the nature of the universe. But, the evidence on something like the theory of evolution is widespread. Virtually every related discipline confirms the theory in one way or another.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:53 pmginsu: "Finally, if I were a gambling man (I am not), I would wager that most of you writing so critically of religion will be out buying Christmas gifts this month. How hypocritical! On the other hand, real Christians don’t observe that holiday. Rather, they observe those things found in the Scriptures. Just food for thought."
An unintentional look at the tortured and confused mind of a religious fundamentalist: He calls us "hypocritical" for buying Christmas presents, but then offers that "real Christians" don't observe the holiday. Hey stupid: if we are not "real Christians" like you are, then how can we be "hypocritical" for buying presents?
December 9th, 2008 at 12:59 pmginsu: "I am just writing this to encourage a little research and critical thinking into some alternative viewpoints for those who don’t already know everything."
The guy who thinks a 2000-year old collection of stories written by multiple authors is the last authority on current geo-political conflict thinks we need to do a little research and engage in "critical thinking."
Okay, that's just hilarious. These people are simply amazing!
December 9th, 2008 at 1:03 pmHey ginsu. Shove your religion up your ass.
You can saddle up that three day old, rotten, fly blown corpse and ride it to Heaven if you like, just keep your fantasies out of my government and classroom.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pmPoor fundamentalists. The cognitive dissonance on a daily basis must be a great challenge for them. ginsu shows us the only methodolocy they have left - kind of like philosophical bomb-throwing or ideological terrorism. Throw your rhetorical, bible-based bomb and quickly leave the area. It's the way cowards argue.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm49erDem Says:
ginsu shows us the only methodolocy they have left - kind of like philosophical bomb-throwing or ideological terrorism. Throw your rhetorical, bible-based bomb and quickly leave the area. It’s the way cowards argue.
Well stated, sir/madamme! Very well stated. And I'm gald to know that I am not alone in having to deal with this 'tactic'. Now I have a new theme to give it. Thanks! :)
December 9th, 2008 at 1:30 pmThanks Cagey, and I would say that around these parts, you're definitely NOT alone.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pmI think that this thread is heading to the morgue (ooohhh double entendre. Score!). And I am off this one. :)
December 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pmAs long as EPA is committed to the task of cleaning up Superfund messes scattered around the country, I really don't care about Mr. Johnson's personal beliefs. The real question is: What is EPA under Johnson doing or not doing that needs to be changed?
These ad hominen round-and-round arguments just pit angry atheists against angry believers and produce nothing of lasting value.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:51 pmThe Christian bible scripture has thousands of different beliefs and demominations even in supposed one church environments. Fact is no one believes exactly the same on what their god is. Science deals with fact and study of the known and proven, and with that make further functional probabilities based on real and provable assumptions rather from abstracts and emotions of spiritual choices, and it is not realistic to attempt competition with the two fields. My God of old is completely abstract,if he ever really talks to me I hope I would get help in searching out mental health assistance. Bush pretends to be a lot more stupid than he is, and we let him get away with it.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:21 pmzbphs: "As long as EPA is committed to the task of cleaning up Superfund messes scattered around the country, I really don’t care about Mr. Johnson’s personal beliefs."
What on earth makes you believe the EPA has had ANY commitment to clean up Superfund cites during the last 8 years? And, do you really think it's irrelevant that people running what should be a science-based department believe in creation? I think their religious beliefs is part of the reason they're incompetent and unwilling to do their civic duties.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:41 pmI think I can shed a bit of light on why the catholic Pope did not have an issue with evolution. I used to be very religious in my early teens, read the bible each night, went to confession weekly, and all the things that should make me an "expert" according to fundamentalist opinions I read. The main reason to attend confession as I got older was to ask the priest to explain all the hateful, violent, or otherwise contradictory "facts" I noticed after reading the bible on the 2nd, 3rd and final passes. It seems my maturing neocortex was interfering with the faith amygdala hijacking mechanisms instilled during my toddler years. I finally went agnostic somewhere in the 4th reading. During one of my "stump the priest" sessions, I asked why all the protestants were against evolution, but our priest never brought it up in his sermons. He laughed and explained there were 2 reasons for this discrepancy.
1. Catholics had learned some lessons from messing with Galileo and Copernicus, and were reading the bible a bit more deeply before kindling the stakes these days. The church does not believe the bible is meant to be taken literally, but requires knowledge of history, the cultures that wrote the bible at the time, etc. Of course the pope also has a direct bat phone to god, so there are still problems at times.
2. He and some catholic scholars felt Genesis could be interpreted to actually prove evolution ocurred. Biblical humans were running around naked, just eating fruits that fell off trees, and were doing no work or using tools in any fashion while in Eden. So until they ate the fruit of the "tree of knowlege of good and evil", they basically lived a lot like really dumb primates. The priest likened eating the apple to starting the process of evolution into thinking humans, who were now capable of forming and using tools, hunting, farming, and making clothes. They also left Eden (the origin point of our species in Africa, it turns out for the guy looking for "proof of the bible in scientific discoveries")and explored the earth, where they further evolved to adapt to differences in climate.
The final thing the priest noted was that evolution only ocurred because Eve insisted on dragging a resisting and clueless Adam primate to finally evolve. But she evolved first. Despite that, I still left the church due to their poor treatment of women in both human and spiritual rights. But I still have to award a few points for their capability to use reason in at least this area, compared to other fundamentalists. This is my first-ever posting, so I hope this is useful to someone.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm49erDem wrote: "The cognitive dissonance on a daily basis must be a great challenge for them."
Actually, the problem... and the amazing thing... is that they are able to 'think' like that without experiencing cognitive dissonance.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:37 pmIt is obvious that Ginsu has no clue what Darwin's "Theory of evolution" is. He blathers:
He is making a straw man argument. He proposes a mish mash of sillyness and claims that science tells us ...
But no scientist has ever said a cat would turn into a dog. That could not happen and has never been proposed by any evolutionist (which means scientist who studies evolution.,).
Actually language has been misused from the get go. Evolution is a fact. What Darwin did was to explain how it wored
There were, in fact, many theories about evolution being developed in the 19th century but Darwin's was based on extensive observation of both biological and geological phenomenon.
Darwin's book that set society on its heels was title "The Origin of the Species" and that's what he discussed and explained. I suggest you who so adamantly don't "believe in evolution" read Darwin's book (which is on line) which is so well written that it is actually used in some Literature classes.
Either read that or read Mayr's book "What Evolution Is". Mayr's book is rather difficult but does not presuppose any knowledge or belief. In fact he suggests that it would be suitable for those who don't "believe in evolution" so that they can argue sensibly.
And no, spewing a lot of verbiage about your perverted view of the Bible does not have any weight in arguing against evolution.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:17 amI think Johnson is doing abominable things, but I also kind of agree about the overlap. religion may not overlap with the scientific method, but these are both ways to interpret the phenomenon of existence, which can be studied as science and/or spirituality. This is where I am at right now ideologically, but if "god" is energy, and science studies matter and forces which are also energy, than how different are they? I think he is confusing "science" with "empiricism" and "religion" with "spirituality." They're not the same.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:44 pmAs a hard science student, I have found that science is neither passive nor objective. No matter how much data you gather, you still have to interpret it by making some kind of value judgement, like deciding where is the cut-off point determining whether or not the relationship between two variables is "significant"? And if you don't, then someone else did at some point in history.
I think we should also remember that we can never know everything. We are always learning and what were "miracles" that could only be explained by the supernatural hundreds of years ago is what we call science today. Maybe theres a whole other piece of the puzzle we haven't found yet?
What I'm saying is, trust in scientifically-generated knowledge, but understand that nothing is completely proven or judgement-free.
There were, in fact, cetmany theories about evolution being developed in the 19th century but Darwin’s was based on extensive observation of both biologicalBedava mp3 indir and geological phenomenon. As a hard science student, I have found that science issohbet neither passive nor objective
February 28th, 2009 at 10:32 am