Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

It isn't the theory of evolution saying that the races are on different evolutionary levels. That there are qualitative differences between the races is something that was already believed when Darwin introduced his theory (and concerning some differences, such as skin color, they were of course correct). But there's nothing in the theory of evolution that says, "Black races are less evolved than white races."But the theory of evolution did provide an explanation for those differences. It was believed that whites were cognitively superior to blacks, and evolution said that this was because whites had evolved greater cognitive abilities.That smarter is better is a value judgement made by people, not by evolution. Smarter is not better than stronger (which 19th century Europeans believed was true of the black races), in the same way that faster is not better than digging burrows. The key requirement for survival is adaptation to the local environment. Improved adaptation is what is better. Depending upon the creature and the circumstances better might mean faster or stronger or taller or longer-necked or even smarter, but none of these qualities are inherently better than any other. There are many intermingling factors. At heart, what is better just all depends.--Percy

PaulK's previous message has it right.--Percy

Except that there's no such thing as "levels of evolution", not today, not then, and especially not ever in Darwin's mind. As PaulK says, this is something you're projecting onto that passage. There can be varying degrees of adaptation to the environment, but there's no such thing as "levels of evolution." You're letting your mind become infected with the whole fallacy of one organism being "more evolved" than another. There's no such thing. There's only better adaptation. And of course if the environment changes then all that better adaptation that was evolved? Out the window, up for grabs, whatever. The term "evolutionarily superior" has no meaning, so Darwin didn't say it or appear to say or imply it or hint at it. The word "evolution" didn't even appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. What's key is adaptation, and the measure of adaptation is relative to the environment. There is no such implication. Someone already explained this to you earlier, but I'll explain it again. That paragraph is addressing the gap between man and "his nearest allies" (chimpanzees and gorillas). He says this could be due to extinction, and that if the "savage races" and the "anthropomorphous apes" (again, chimpanzees and gorillas) were to go extinct in the future then the gap would become even larger.I can only guess that your misinterpretation of that passage stems from a stumble over application of the phrase "man in a more civilised state." To make the hypothesized future gap even larger he's postulating that in the future man might be more civilized than in his day.--Percy

I have to agree that as a businessman Ham is doing exactly what he should be doing, seeking every advantage. If he can get a court to agree with him, more power to him.But the law is pretty clear that non-religious organizations cannot discriminate in employment on the basis of religion, so his actions as a businessman are not consistent with his standing as a man of God, and that can't fail to escape anyone's notice. Even you must concede it would be odd for a non-religious organization to hire only fundamentalist Christians. How would you feel if an Islamic group founded an organization that accepted state assistance to build a replica of the Dome of the Rock as an attraction but hired only Muslims? Or how would you feel if New York's Museum of Natural History refused to employ fundamentalist Christians because they didn't believe anything in the exhibits?--Percy

So you think Ham is wrong, but you can see that there might be some potential advantages to hiring only Christians, so it must be your position that not following the law is okay as long as "they have a good reason for it."But regardless of Ham's rationale, if he succeeds it means that Muslims could take public money for their own theme park and hire only Muslims. To be consistent, if you think what Ham doing it is okay then you have to agree that Muslims doing it would be okay, too. As long as they have just as good a reason.--Percy

There's no accusation. We're talking hypothetically. If Ham accepts public money from the state while discriminating in hiring practices on the basis of religion then that would violate separation of church and state. People have been driven by financial motivations to get around separation of church and state since the beginning of the republic. Thus far no one has succeeded and stayed within the law.--Percy

How naive.I'm not sure why Nwr thinks Ham has a case (maybe he meant Ham has some arguments he can raise no matter how hopeless) but he might otherwise have the right take on this. Ham has no case but by losing in court he gains Christian donations. If he continues to take public money, if the ark park remains non-religious, then donations are taxable income, but it's more money than he had before.--Percy

A really good reason for hiring only Christians that isn't religious? There's a good reason for that - it doesn't exist. You're proposing that we ignore separation of church and state for religious enterprises that couldn't be successful without public money. More accurately, you mean you can imagine that such a situation could exist, but you can't imagine what that situation might be.--Percy

That's absurd. The US is 73% Christian according to recent polls.What you really meant to say is, "American has become hostile to fanatically conservative and paranoid fundamentalist Christians." And that isn't true, either. Not giving into your every whim is not hostility.--Perch

I wasn't calling you names, just calling you out on your distortion. In a country that is nearly 3/4 Christian, to claim there is hostility toward Christians is preposterous. And to claim hostility toward your minority sub-sect of Christianity simply because the rest of the country doesn't share your eagerness for violating separation of church and state is equally preposterous.I think what most identifies your Christian sub-sect is its lack of the shame and embarrassment gene. You can't just make up how the world really is - the rest of us live in the same world and can tell when you're lying.--Percy

Ouch, whiplash again. As Subbie noted, your interpretation of the First Amendment described in the first paragraph of your Message 709 could not be more different than the Supreme Court's interpretation that Subbie quoted in Message 719. You do disagree with it, or at least you did just yesterday.Would it be too much to ask for a cessation of denials of things you've said earlier so that we can have at least a modicum of consistency? If you don't want to defend stupid, indefensible positions then stop stating stupid, indefensible positions.Predicted response, if there is one: "Nothing I've said is stupid or indefensible. What I said was ..."--Percy

The strongest Biblical support for slavery comes from Genesis 9:25-27 concerning Noah's curse of Ham on his grandson Canaan after Ham had seen him naked:

quote:

---

"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "

---

Since Canaan settled in Africa, people in Africa were slaves. That was the very common Biblical interpretation for centuries.But Christianity's interpretation of the Bible regarding slavery has of course evolved along with society. Before the Renaissance most Christians believed the Bible supported slavery:

quote:

---

"In the early years of Christianity, slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and this persisted in different forms and with regional differences well into the Middle Ages.[1] Most Christian figures in that early period such as Saint Augustine, accepted slavery as an inevitability whereas some, such as Saint Patrick (a former slave), were opposed to it. Both the Old Testament and New Testament treat slavery as a given, to the extent of (in the case of the Old Testament) laying down regulations for its "just" practice. Historically this has presented a challenge for Christians advocating against slavery." (Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia)

---

But the most significant collision between opposing schools of Biblical interpretation occurred in the United States when growing differences between North and South on the institution of slavery forced a schism in the Baptist church:

quote:

---

"By the 1830s, tension had begun to mount between Northern and Southern Baptist churches. The support of Baptists in the South for slavery can be ascribed to economic and social reasons. However, Baptists in the North claimed that God would not "condone treating one race as superior to another". Southerners, on the other hand, held that God intended the races to be separate. Finally, around 1835, Southern states began complaining that they were being slighted in the allocation of funds for missionary work.

​

"The break was triggered in 1844, when the Home Mission Society announced that a person could not be a missionary and still keep his slaves as property. Faced with this challenge, the Baptists in the south assembled in May 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, and organized the Southern Baptist Convention, which fully supported slavery (though later renounced it in the mid-20th century)." (Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia)

---

During the Civil War while armies faced each other across battlefields, ministers of North and South faced each other over their Bibles, each citing Biblical arguments for why God either favored or opposed slavery. You're the poster child for the very point subbie is making. Fundamentalists the world over bark that those in disagreement are misusing religious texts.So bringing this point back to the topic, Biblical interpretations and religious beliefs are not unchanging. They evolve and develop over time. Religious adherents in this country possess the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. If they want to be closed and discriminate on any basis, they are free to do so. But when religious people create secular organizations or businesses then they must follow the same laws as everyone else.--Percy

Agreed. I probably should have said, "...and can tell when you're lying or deluded." Faith makes statements that are at odds with reality and sometimes even of simple logic, and my point is how fruitless this is since the evidence that she is wrong is so tremendously obvious. Her willingness to argue the indefensibly stupid at length doesn't make wrong any less wrong.--Percy

The charge you're supposedly defending yourself against is that fundamentalists of all stripes around the world always claim that interpretations different from their own are misuses of their religious texts. Instead you're just providing more examples of a fundamentalist doing more of the same.The fact of the matter is that most Christians disagree with you about separation of church and state, at least as you viewed it around 6 PM yesterday. Now given your recent enlightenment on the First Amendment, have your views changed on what Ken Ham is trying to do regarding employment at his publicly funded ark park--Percy

My dear lady, what on earth could have given you such an impression? The only encouragement you have received can only be coming from within your own brain. You continue to spew non sequiturs at an incredible rate. There seems no position too obviously wrong for you to adopt. Correcting your errors is impossible because you commit them far faster than any clarifications or illuminations could ever catch up with. In fact it almost seems that the more grave your error the faster you issue more minor errors as a cloud of distraction.If you ever figure out how Ken Ham isn't conspicuously and undeniably trying to evade separation of church and state to his own financial advantage, and if you also figure out how to express it in clear and unambiguous terms that go beyond saying, "I trust that Ken Ham has good reasons," then you please let us know.--Percy