A Talk By Richard Dawkins on Atheism in The United States.

God, Evolution, and Scientific Inquiry: A Conversation.

The following is a conversation between me and an old camp friend, Sam Vore, who has since become a pastor. It started when I posted a story on Facebook about the Pope's comments to Africans that condoms would not solve the HIV/ AIDS epidemic there, implying that abstinence and a moral sense of sexuality are the only real solutions. I made an angry comment along with my post about how silly it is that we still listen to men in white robes whom do not hold higher degrees or provide any viable solutions to real world problems in the 21st century when we have the level of scientific data and empirical evidence that we do today to rely on. The following debate occurred as a result of this post.

SAM: As a pastor I'm glad I wear jeans and shirts when I preach and not these robes you speak of...pfew! Religion is bad. Pop christian, islam, buddhism, evolution, catholic, tarot and crystals, conspiracists, mormon, fortune cookies they all do spread ignorance! Matthew is right! But jeff, on principle I would disagree that a person has to be doctor, psychologist, or a social worker to be right. So I don't share your view that only educated people should have a voice. People should read Jesus without any preconcieved bias. Then the world would change for the good. Everyone would work together to eliminate AIDS. Everyone needs to be fed, housed, and given medical care. I agree!.. I don't like the pope.

JEFF: Hey Sam, I agree that SOME religious groups do try to help end social problems. My beef is that they don't seem to understand that there are very educated people doing very useful studies on HOW to solve these problems in universities worldwide. So if they want to help, I believe they should help as concerned people, not as members of a religion, and that they use the methods being established by the educated specialists sans the moralizing religious judgments and alternative treatments. For instance, something like Doctors Without Borders is a very useful, secular group trying to help with the African AIDS epidemic. However, right along side them are missionary groups saying, "I want to help, but I also want to talk about my faith, and about Jesus, and about moral choices these people are making." I don't believe this is helpful because in these religious opinions they are going to contradict the empirical evidence and confuse the people being treated as to who knows what's best. This could potentially make matters worse, making the doctor's job even harder. So I don't believe educated people are the only one's who should have a voice, but I do believe they should be turned to for information on how to best carry out one's good intentions.

Wait, wait, wait...did you just throw evolution in with tarrot cards and crystals spreading ignorance? Sam! Evolution is science! Ok, I know the argument that it is not fact, per say, it is technically a theory, but this is only true because it is only provable through deductive reasoning, not empirical evidence. However, if it is wrong most of what we know in the field of natural sciences can't be true and we should all stop going to doctors and cut all science programs from schools everywhere.

SAM: Yeah I did=) If science needs to be fact, and evolution is as you admit technically a theory, then theory has no place in science as fact and should be placed in the category of religion and faith. You can practice your faith just as I can, but our faith has no place to be taught as fact. If you don't want me teaching my theory of creation in school, don't teach the theory of evolution in school. Dude, don't say that human deductive reason leads us to know evolution is true because human reason also leads us to know there is something bigger than us and therefore we're not just animals. Science is good, but theorys should never be presented as fact, but only as theorys...I want you to know this is all just friendly debate, and I don't disown friends just cause we disagree, just so you know. I also support HIV/AIDS work and personal differences come well after helping human beings.

JEFF: Sam, no one teaches evolution as fact in science. It always has been a theory. However, here is the difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism. The theory of creationism is made up. 100% fabricated out of someone's mind and presented as a viable alternative to evolution despite its being in conflict with numerous other facts in history and actual laws of science that we know for sure to be true. In science it only takes one example of something contradicting scientific law or historical fact for a theory to be dismissed. Evolution, however, is based on the fact that we know living beings evolve in present day reality. We have collected data for long enough periods on species of creatures that proves they have evolved from a point earlier in history to now--be it a week, a month, or a hundred years. We also know from our recorded history that nothing natural has happened that would suggest that things did not evolve in the same way for as long as life has existed. Therefore, evolution is breaking no scientific laws, nor is it in conflict with any historical evidence, plus we can see it happening right in front of us today, thus we can assume it has always happened this way. That's deductive reasoning. We cannot see things appearing out of thin air today, and we know that this is scientifically impossible (for matter to appear out of thin air). Thus we can deduce this is NOT the way human life began. It's a story and should be taught as such. Understanding that things evolves leads to other scientific inquiries necessary to cure diseases, understand natural behaviors and continuing intellectually evolving as human beings. And I believe the reason creationist are particularly upset these days is because this debate was already had over 100 years ago and evolution won. Thus, we don't have to have it again. We can point them to the history books where the debate is recorded and see if they have anything new to add.

SAM: Oh please, No evolutionist has ever come up with a good explanation of how life began in the universe that is any more believable than that God did it. You're right things don't come from nothing so everything has to have an origin therefore the question is of how life began in the first place. Evolutionists theories range from alien seed to random... Read More probability. Nobody finds it ironic that the probability of chemicals arranging themselves into simple proteins is so small that belief in aliens or a creater is more logical? Darwin even said that his theory was quite flawed. And besides, his methods were so primative, and I would speculate (and its ok to do so because evolutionist can make assumptions about things nobody actually saw) that if Darwin had access to equipment today, he would not have come to the same conclusions. Evolution has won like Bush won his first election: if you get down top the root of it, things don't add up. I went through public high school and a public university and thought evolution was fine untill things didn't add up. I started reasoning myself and came to the conclusion that someone created the earth...If natural selection rules the world why worry about protecting species. If pink iquanas in the Galapagos can't evolve maybe they shouldn't be allowed to live among the "fittest." Same for humans. If we destroy the Earth, it means our ethics and consumption lead us to it, and maybe humanity should die out. Life will spring forth again and evolution will continue. If we can't adapt to a warmer earth, or evolve to live in a warm ocean then that's the way its supposed to be. We don't need AC cause we need to start evolving today! Disease helps limit population growth so compassion to stop it would be contrary to the natural order. Or could it be that there is way more to the universe then we know?

JEFF: First I want to say that I appreciate the debate Sam, and you do raise some interesting questions, but at the same time I think you are mistaken about what science is teaching. You're talking about the beginning as though it is completely disconnected from the present. I've never heard the "alien seed" or the "random probability" theories. My understanding of the most plausible theory is Big Bang and Evolution. Big Bang being based on the fact that the universe is expanding in all directions, which implies there may have been a central point that exploded and sent these parts floating off into different orbits. Earth has life based purely on where it landed in the universe in proximity to an energy source like the sun and that it's atmosphere is made up of gases that create water. Micro-organisms grow in water and thus life begins and evolutionary theory picks up there with the adaptations that took place over millions of years to get from there to here. Why does a higher power have to be involved in this equation? I guess the question would be where did the initial chunk of matter that exploded come from, but some Big Bang theorists believe that the universe is going through cycles of expansion and implosion. Meaning that the matter could have always existed (mind blowing as that is) and has been expanding to a point until the physics of outer space send it back into an imploding cycle. It compresses back together, builds pressure until it can't implode any further from the heat build up and explodes again. Seems perfectly plausible to me. It at least follows general laws of physics and biology. It isn't just some random guess based on mythology.

SAM: Jeff, I appreciate the debate too. I always hear out anybody who would like to peacefully share their view. I don't want anyone to think I respect you less because we apparently disagree. The alien seed and random probability theories are just two explanations I've seen from highly educated evolutionists about how life began. Primordial soup and random molecular formation into proteins is just about scientifically impossible. People don't realize how near impossible it is, but people still say life began by chance from primordial ooze. I know the universe is currently expanding. I don't argue with scientists on that observation. God speaking the universe into existence seems like a big bang to me. The fact is the earth is in a perfect spot. I think God put it there, others claim its by chance. Micro organisms grow in water yes, but its the molecules and structure of even single celled critters that are scientifically improbable to have happened. A higher power has everything to do with this discussion. My ancient text says there is a God who created the earth. I look at the data of bones in the dirt and strata in the ground and it proves the text. We can both find fact to try to prove our beliefs. There is a great debate in "science" about throwing creation out of the possible interpretations of the data we collect. If its a mind-blowing idea that matter can exist eternally (which does defy laws of thermo dynamics) could it not also be just as mind blowing that a God really could have made life and the whole universe...I am an educated human being. I believe the God of Israel to be the only living God, who created the Earth. The history of this God is recorded in ancient Hebrew texts as well as first century texts in reference to the hebrew messiah Yeshua of Nazareth, who has delivered the world from sin. If that makes me crazy, I'm happy to be... Jeff, I need to sign off, but today has been good. You can have the final word.

JEFF: Ok, well thank you for the last word. I have had this debate enough times to know I won't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced because there is absolutely no way to prove that there is a higher power. I say that means there isn't one. If there has been no empirical evidence to back the theory of a higher power in the history of humankind, that to me is pretty clear evidence that we're doing this on our own (which makes educating ourselves on what has already been tried and what theories are the most radically out of touch even more significant). In my experience many Christians have the luxury of not having the weight of these decisions on their shoulders and when they do they most often put aside their faith and go with science and logic in life and death situations. That's how this discussion was started. I believe religion needlessly instills doubt in science when science never claims to have all the answers, it simply has the best answers humans have come up with. Religion on the other hand strikes me as being very much like the Republican Party right now. They have no ideas. The ideas they do have are old and have been tried and didn't work, but for some reason they think if they just keep raising doubts in people generation after generation this will somehow change the outcome. It strikes me as intellectual dishonesty and ideological warfare. Instead of seeing holes in science and problems in society and trying to help--perhaps choosing that particular gap as what they will spend their life studying in an attempt to solve this question for the next generation--they see a hole and say, "See! Look, your argument is faulty and therefore there must be a God." That's not a theory, or even a debate, it's just a made up story to fill in the holes that science hasn't gotten to yet. And if they weren't hurting anyone I would say, great, who cares, let them believe what they want, but since they are causing confusing and blurring the truth about science and ideologically speaking, not really doing any good for anyone. I think it can be said that people can be moral and concerned and helpful without the need for religious institutions confusing young people and the less educated about whom is telling them the truth.

Obama Has Nothing To Prove

In recent days it has become quite apparent that some Americans (mostly those working as correspondents for Fox News and their cowardly followers) are outraged with our president going to other nations abroad, acting like a civilized diplomat, and telling the truth about what our nation is all about. He told members of the G-20 that we were not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens with the freedom of religion, which is true. He then went to Saudi Arabia and bowed to the king, as is customary in their country. Conservatives are upset because he has not been to church in the 11 weeks of his presidency, even though he was very clear during his campaign that although he was a Christian he did not go to church very regularly. They are outraged! "What is he doing to our nation?" they ask. Well, let me explain.

Obama is doing what everyone of us in this nation should be learning to do. He is living by the rights endowed to him as a U.S. citizen to practice religion as he sees fit, or to not practice religion at all. He is going to other countries and having the common courtesy to abide by the local customs instead of shoving some generic, low-brow form of American culture down the throats of the rest of the world. When he greets members of other nations, he takes the time on the plane ride to learn how to say, "Hello," in their language. This is not a difficult task, and quite frankly is something anyone can and should do if visiting another country. It goes a long way in extending a signal of peace and civility to our neighbors. It also says to them that we are not monolingual idiots incapable of comprehending other languages while the rest of the world speaks two, three, even four or five different languages before leaving high school.

Where this becomes an issue for the right-wing nut jobs of America is that they believe it makes Obama look weak to be so friendly and peaceful with the rest of the world. They like the image we have portrayed for the last eight years of being hard-ass cowboys with the largest military in human history. They like scaring the shit out of the rest of the world and watching them squirm under the thumb of a giant nation. Obama, along with the 60% of Americans who gleefully approve of his policies so far, seem to understand that a well-spoken, attractive, worldclass educated, bi-lingual man--with a beautiful, worldclass educated, formly corporate executive, bi-lingual wife, and two intelligent, compassionate children--who is president of the wealthiest, most powerful and well-armed nation in the history of humankind does not have to walk around in the world being paranoid and defensive and so scared of other world leaders that he needs to put up a front of power. He understands that his prescence is reminder enough of what America is capable of. His very being as a black man with his abilities democratically elected to lead a free nation is symbolic enough to the rest of the world that we do have classy, hardworking, intelligent citizens among us and we are capable of finding them and electing them as leaders. By bowing to other leaders in their country, he is sending the signal that when he is in someone else's country, he is a visitor and will behave like one. This then allows him the leverage to demand the same respect when leaders visit our country. In fact, the Obamas are so respectful and polite that the Queen of England actually let Michelle put her arm around her, when the custom is that no one ever touches the queen. It really isn't that complicated. It's how decent human beings interact with other human beings. Period. No games. No drama. Honesty and fair competition. We're in the lead, we don't have to work so damn hard to impress people.

What we are seeing is that the Obamas are defusing tension around the world with their calm respectful demeanor and sending a message that we are an open nation ready to talk through our problems like mature, educated people do. The world is well aware that we have 9,000 nuclear warheads pointed at every region of the world and that all it would take is this man's word to literally desimate a large portion of the globe. A man with that power needs to speak softly or people tend to get a little shaky. People respond to fear in many different ways. Some respond with pride and would rather die than be under the thumb of an aggressive super-power. That is what we do not want. That is the message Bush sent to the world as the threatened, childish little dumbass that he was. Now we have an adult who wants those proud poor (economically speaking) people of the world to feel that they are in the peaceful embrace of a giant who feels their pain. He wants them to know that we are not a nation of Christians that hate Muslims, that we are in fact, as he clearly stated, a nation of citizens with the right to worship as we please. As far as foreign policy is concerned--religion has no place in government. Thus, Obama does not, and should not, care what religion other world leaders abide by in their personal lives. He is saying, "We don't even care what religion our own citizens are. Hell, I haven't been to church in 11 weeks! Rather we care about understanding on a logical, secular level what other nations want for their citizens, why they would want to attack us, and what we can do to help with the former and aleviate the latter." That is what wealthy, capable people with any shred of human decency do with their wealth and power. They use it to solve world problems. They do not use it to lock down their private property like some kind of gated community with nukes and spend the rest of their existence gaining more wealth and building higher walls and larger weapons to fight off poor nations just looking to get some respect.

So I hope Americans will turn off the rantings of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and recognize that although we have freedom of speech, there is a big difference between listening to a man who chooses his words carefully and thoughtfully with the best intentions for everyone involved, and listening to rich, paranoid chickenshits who can't comprehend that they have a better chance of dying on their way to work in a traffic jam than they do getting bombed by an angry nation looking for attention. Thus, Obama can chill out and work on making friends and preventing all of the other "fates worse than death" that occur within our own boarders everyday. Everyone dies. More people die everyday from cigarette smoking, heart disease, traffic accidents, etcetera, etcetera than died in the 9/11 bombings. They aren't always as violent and flashy, but the people die all the same. So if one is that concerned and afraid of another attack, there is no logical reason why one would not be very concerned with our failing health care system, with our poor laws of preventing greenhouse emissions, and with our poor laws for reducing health risks before they happen. No one wants to have to pass legislation to make people do what is best for them and for society as a whole. Things run much more smoothly when people educate themselves and do these things of their own accord. However, people don't. Americans misuse and abuse their freedoms to do what ever they damn well please. This is dysfunctional. This is what caused the plethora of crises we are experiencing now and this is why we are likely to see a multitude of regulations placed on everyone to get things back to good. It's not socialism. It's not tyranny. It's one confident guy standing up and saying, "Look you morons, think about the big picture. Is it really worth having freedom if your nation is full of sick and dying, uneducated, frightened people? If everyone in the world wants to kill us for acting like arrogant assholes? Is that really something we can be proud of? Is that really an enjoyable way to spend our lives and the message we want to send to our children? No. So either get your shit together and learn about what's going on outside your own little narcissistic wonderland, or we're going to have to pass laws that wake you up and re-engage you in reality. That's what the majority of the country voted for. That's what I'm going to do." I for one could not be more proud. Everyday I am more amazed with Obama's boldness and intelligent ways of handling problems. I hope others agree and that we get eight wonderful years of this and, fate willing, another eight after that and after that and after that.