Home » American Scientific Affiliation, Culture, Darwinism » Take American Scientific Affiliation’s survey: Who knows, you could be a Christian atheist!

Take American Scientific Affiliation’s survey: Who knows, you could be a Christian atheist!

American Scientific Affiliation, more and more leaning to Christian Darwinism, is running a survey which you do not need to be a member to take part in, here.

Some interesting questions and responses:

“Consciousness and self-awareness emerged in hominids through evolutionary processes.” 33% agree. (So it wasn’t a gift of God; it just sort of happened.)

“Human behaviors, like kindness, care for children, competition, or desire for revenge, developed through evolutionary processes.” 35% agree. (God’s approval or disapproval is irrelevant; it just happened.)

Also: “Adam and Eve represent the first creatures to be human in a theological sense.”44% agree.

It’s a good thing that “in a theological sense” doesn’t mean a dam thing. Look, if you came across a human skull in the woods, what would you do?

We thought so. Maybe, you have a legal obligation to report, but we bet that wasn’t what motivated you to rush off to contact the nearest police station.

How much time did you spend on “human ‘in a theological sense?’” No. We wouldn’t spend any time on it either.

“Human in a theological sense” is, for us, one of those scary concepts, like Francis Collins’ support for kill experiments on human embryos on the ground that God didn’t really intend them to exist, if they ended up in a kill experiment.

Christian Darwinism, any brand, is just one more church closer.

A friend complains,

The frustrating thing about this “survey” is that it is so poorly framed. There is no definition of “natural” let alone “evolutionary processes.” And there are no clear options for those who want to indicate a belief in intelligent design in biology. This survey itself is one indication of what is wrong with the ASA.

But how was that a problem for Darwin-lovin’ ASA and not a solution?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 Responses to Take American Scientific Affiliation’s survey: Who knows, you could be a Christian atheist!

  1. 1

    These scientists needed an operational definition, or two.

    ;)

  2. 2
    Elizabeth Liddle

    “Consciousness and self-awareness emerged in hominids through evolutionary processes.” 33% agree. (So it wasn’t a gift of God; it just sort of happened.)

    Why would that make it not a gift of god?

    Is the universe not a gift of God? Why couldn’t God have given us a universe in which self-awareness would evolve?

  3. Why couldn’t God have given us a universe in which self-awareness would evolve?

    Which definition of evolve are you using today?

  4. Elizabeth: Why couldn’t God have given us a universe in which self-awareness would evolve?

    Show us how self-awareness and/or consciousness evolves or could evolve. Otherwise, the question is vacuous.

  5. semi OT: as to consciousness/soul being separate from brain/body:

    BOB WOODRUFF PROBES THE MYSTERIES OF NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES – INCLUDING HIS OWN – ON “PRIMETIME NIGHTLINE: BEYOND BELIEF,” WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3 ON ABC
    On “Primetime Nightline: Beyond Belief” on WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3 (10:00-11:00 p.m., ET), ABC News’ Bob Woodruff probes the mysteries of near death experiences and what people see, feel and hear when they describe crossing over from this world to the next – and return. In tonight’s episode, “The Other Side,” Woodruff talks candidly about what he remembers in the terrible minutes after a vehicle in which he was traveling in Iraq in 2006 hit an improvised explosive device and he saw his body floating beneath him. He speaks with other people who report the same type of out-of-body experience, as well as with theologians, preachers, researchers and physicians who try to explain it.
    http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr.....=080111_20

    Related from Good Morning America on this mornings show

    Is There An Afterlife? Near-Death Survivors Explain ‘Life on Other Side’: Stories Point to Heaven? – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlQyKzXlb1w

    =======

    further note:

    The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences – Dr Jeffery Long – Melvin Morse M.D. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627

  6. Elizabeth Liddle:

    Why couldn’t God have given us a universe in which self-awareness would evolve?

    Sort of like how a GA designer programs a target into a GA and the GA “evolves” the solution?

  7. EL: Why couldn’t God have given us a universe in which self-awareness would evolve?
    Mung Which definition of evolve are you using today?

    Also, which of ‘universe’, which of ‘self’, which of ‘awareness’, which of ‘self-awareness’, which of ‘give’; and which of ‘God’.

  8. 8

    I admit I’ve also never understood how it’s determined, and so definitively, that God either could not, or would not, have used “natural” feedback processes as His chosen tool to create life forms meeting His specifications. Why would God be constrained by the requirement to use miracles, break His own rules as it were, in order to force things to happen on human timeframes? Who PUT that requirement on God, anyway? And how did they do it?

    Seriously, is there any compelling reason why He wasn’t allowed to use His own methods on His timeframe, or why He isn’t allowed to follow His own rules?

    I understand that certain interpretations of certain scriptural passages seem to imply these things to certain readers, but I guess I’m a follower of the “watch what I DO, and not what I SAY” school of thought. Words are much easier to misinterpret than actions.

  9. I just watched the Near death show I referenced in post 5. The show seemed to hang up on the ‘soul’ concept. Thus, I would like to point out once again that ‘non-local’ quantum information has been found within life on a massive scale.,,, and Non-local quantum information has been shown not to be reducible to material particles,,, nor to space-time constraints for that matter,,, thus the ‘mechanism’, for lack of a better word, has been shown to exist for the soul.

    notes:

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

    Quantum Computing in DNA – Stuart Hameroff
    Excerpt: Hypothesis: DNA utilizes quantum information and quantum computation for various functions. Superpositions of dipole states of base pairs consisting of purine (A,G) and pyrimidine (C,T) ring structures play the role of qubits, and quantum communication (coherence, entanglement, non-locality) occur in the “pi stack” region of the DNA molecule.,,, We can then consider DNA as a chain of qubits (with helical twist).
    Output of quantum computation would be manifest as the net electron interference pattern in the quantum state of the pi stack, regulating gene expression and other functions locally and nonlocally by radiation or entanglement.
    http://www.quantumconsciousnes.....InDNA.html

    Quantum Action confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research;

    DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011
    Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....104014.htm

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH
    Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
    http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420

  10. Seriously, is there any compelling reason why He wasn’t allowed to use His own methods on His timeframe, or why He isn’t allowed to follow His own rules?

    We, who were not even present at them time, prevented Him?

    Seriously, is there any compelling reason why He can’t use His own methods

    none

    on His timeframe

    none

    or why He isn’t allowed to follow His own rules?

    As long as “following his own rules” excludes miraculous acts?

    David W. Gibson:

    Why would God be constrained by the requirement to use miracles, break His own rules as it were, in order to force things to happen on human timeframes? Who PUT that requirement on God, anyway? And how did they do it?

    Well, in this case it looks like you’re the one.

    Who says that everything God does that involves the “natural” world isn’t miraculous?

    Who says that God’s rules don’t allow him to use miracles?

    Who says that performing a miracle breaks God’s rules?

    Isn’t there just a bit of a flaw in your argument here?

Leave a Reply