Hate Mail

Michael Miller, Page 2

[Editor's note: this one starts with a clumsy attempt to prop up his notion that criticism of creationism somehow amounts to intolerance of Christianity, and then it launches into another defense of creationism. He starts with the usual pseudoscience, followed by appeals to authority, followed by laughable strawman distortions of evolution theory. He can't help but throw in the obnoxious religious sales pitch common to fundamentalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons, and then finally, he tries to sell his story of personal faith healing]

March 13, 2001:

Granted you did not say ignorant but you did put Christians (most of whom believe in inerrancy) in very bad light.

Strawman fallacy. I said that you have to be ignorant in order to accept Biblical inerrancy, and that's absolutely true. Study the history, particularly the way in which material was selected for inclusion and deletion, not to mention the time delay between the occurrence of every event and the authoring of the corresponding paper records that eventually found their way into the Bible. There are lots of Christians who accept the Bible as allegory rather than scientific fact, and you are committing the standard intellectual crime of the Christian fundamentalist, by assuming that your particular variation upon Christianity is universal.

And with Creationist being ignorant. Ever hear of Ocam's (sp I think) Razor? Which is simpler to explain? God said it and it was done or through millions of years, chance, and mutations (which we have never observed on the scale evolution suggests) we came about? The theory of Creation is God said and it was done.

Let's add one more item to the long list of scientific principles which exceed your intellectual capacity: you don't understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor demands the simplest theory, but simplicity is defined as the simplicity of the mechanism, not the verbal explanation. Many beautifully elegant mechanisms are difficult to explain to the layperson; does this make them violations of Occam's Razor? Only to the ignorant.

Creationism does not have a simpler mechanism than evolution, because it has no mechanism at all. It doesn't even attempt to explain how God did this, so it simply resorts to describing it as a miracle, which is inherently unscientific. Occam's Razor simply doesn't come into play, because Occam's Razor is used to decide between multiple theories which both fit the facts. Creationism isn't a theory (no mechanism) and it doesn't fit the facts.

[Editor's note: this is a very simplified explanation of the fallacy of the "Occam's Razor" pseudoscience argument. For more detailed discussion, search the Argument Database.

For one thing the Constitution is about freedom "of" religion not freedom "from" religon.

Nonsense. By giving people the right to believe in whatever gods they want, they also give people the right to believe that there is no God at all. You are attempting to violate the spirit of the law with the letter of the law; read the founding fathers' opinions on religion (particularly those of Jefferson and Paine) and you will see what I'm talking about.

[Editor's note: the "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" line is such a classic fundamentalist catch-phrase: are they trying to suggest that the Constitution won't let Americans have freedom from religion if they want it? That it is unconstitutional for Americans to be atheists?]

If you know anything about the foundation of this country was about you would know that. Part of what the founders wanted was to worship God in their own way not what the government mandated.

Now you're putting words in the US founders' mouths. Try reading their own words (BTW, I'm not an American; I only mention American history because I know that a large proportion of the world's creationist movement happens to reside there).

[Editor's note: Actually, the Constitution prohibits laws for the establishment of religion, a prohibition which was obviously designed to keep religion out of the government in any form. The phrase was obviously not designed to instruct government to encourage people to "worship God in their own way"; it was designed to instruct government to avoid promoting any religion in any way]

Basically government cannot tell a person how to practice their own religion. But we are losing that in this country. Christians more and more being told what they can and cannot do in regards to their beliefs.

Nonsense. They are being told that they can't force their beliefs onto other people, and that's a fundamental principle of human rights. No one anywhere is telling Christians that they can't pray in their own homes, teach their own children about Jesus, or keep the Bible by their nightstands. They are, however, being told that they can't use the organs of the state, such as its courts and its schools, to shove their beliefs down other peoples' throats.

You may criticize me all you want but you are similar in attitude to others who wish to make laws preventing me from expressing my belief to others and make laws limiting what I can allow my children to learn or not learn. And that is what annoys me.

No one is making any laws restricting your expression of belief or your education of your own children. However, they do have laws to prevent you from using taxpayer money to prop up a religion, or using public schools to indoctrinate other peoples' children with your belief system.

Christian victomology is a tiresome doctrine. For nearly two thousand years, Christians were the oppressors, not the oppressed, and in your case, you still carry the psychological persecution syndrome; you think that people who resist your attempts at oppression are actually oppressing you!

In you language: Standard humanist dogma. We already know that there is more we don't know then we know.

Which drives us to learn more, rather than giving up and saying that it's beyond our ability to comprehend. If everyone subscribed to your mentality that anything we don't already know is beyond our comprehension and forever unknowable to us, then we would never have advanced beyond the Stone Age.

Every interpretation of anything including scientific observation is subjective.

Nonsense. Objectivism and the scientific method require quantification and measurement, which are not subjective. Again, you demonstrate the depths of your scientific ignorance.

And this "ancient book of tribal mythology" as you put it, has been around for a long time and science has been actually catching up with it. See below.

The age of the Bible has nothing to do with its uselessness as scientific evidence. Its "scientific accuracy" is an invention of people who willfully interpret it in a non-literal or literal fashion depending on what they want to see, and then describe the entire inconsistent mess as "inerrancy".

[Quoted] "Here's some fun Biblical astrophysics for you: In Joshua 10:12, the Sun and Moon "stood still" in the sky at God's command for an entire day, so that the Israelites could complete their bloody vengeance upon the Amorites."

And we still refer to the sun and moon moving across the sky. Do we believe that the sun and moon actually move across the sky? It's a common figure of speach. Come on!

In other words, you decide not to interpret this literally, because you know it's nonsense. But of course, other parts of the Bible must be interpreted literally because the Bible is "inerrant", right? And what about the fact that the Sun and Moon supposedly stopped? Doesn't that bother you at all?

Even if we use your willfully non-literal interpretation to get out of this jam, we still hardly escape the fact that if the Earth suddenly stopped rotating, all life would be destroyed.

[Quoted] "In Job 9:6, the Earth is described as being on "pillars"."

Read further to Job 26:7 where the Earth is described as being suspend over nothing.

Which is yet another astrophysical joke, since it implies the existence of a huge gravity field external to the Earth (hence the fact that it can be "over" something). Thank you very much for yet another piece of evidence that the Bible is scientifically laughable; if the Earth is "over" something, then there has to be an absolute "up" and "down" in space, which is so silly that it's downright comical. It also means that the Earth is a flat object suspended in an external gravity field rather than a spherical object which creates its own gravity.

"The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church"- Ferdinand Magellan

Doesn't it occur to you why Christian scholars thought the Earth to be flat for more than a thousand years? They worked without scientific knowledge, and if you read the Bible without interference from scientific influences, you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat. Only today, with widespread common knowledge of the Earth's near-spherical nature and self-generation of gravity, do people carefully interpret the Bible in such a manner as to fool themselves into thinking that it supports a round Earth.

[Editor's note: I should have said "Biblical inerrantists" rather than "Christian scholars". Not all Christian scholars throughout history were Biblical inerrantists (contrary to Mr. Miller's claims). In fact, by the time of Galileo, even the Catholic church had a policy that direct observation should override Biblical interpretation in the event of a conflict (although they ignored that policy in Galileo's case). They thought conflicts would only happen in the minority of cases, but as the centuries passed, scientific observations refuted literal interpretations of Genesis piece by piece, until there was nothing left. When this happened, reactionaries dug in their heels and declared war. Ironically, the resurgence of Biblical inerrancy is actually a reaction to the success of science; not only is it a defensive response to the death of sacred cows, but it attempts to apply the scientific method to the Bible, as if it was meant to be interpreted that way]

Even if we interpret this in the most generous possible non-literal way (which I know you will) and assume that he's talking about the huge external gravity field of the Sun, then the passage is still scientifically indefensible because suspension over a 1.4 million kilometre wide ball of superheated gas is hardly what I would call suspension "over nothing".

Also it said it's pillars not the pillars it is upon. Learn to read.

Take your own advice, and learn to read the whole sentence. Job 9:6: "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble". In context, it's obvious that the authors were speaking of structural pillars fixing the Earth itself in "its place". The very notion of the Earth having a fixed "place" from which it can be shaken is laughable, but that's the Bible for you.

[Editor's note: the notion of the Earth's immovability and the passage from the Book of Job was actually one of the arguments used by the Catholic church to "prove" that Galileo was wrong about the Earth revolving around the Sun]

[Quoted] "In Revelation 7:1, the Earth is described as having "four corners"."

Yes and we still say it has four corners. We have even named them: North, South, East and West. Bingo another figure of speach.

In other words, yet another passage which you choose to interpret in a non-literal way, despite your doctrine of Biblical "inerrancy". If the Bible says something which can be rationalized with a known reliable source of facts (ie- scientific observation), then you choose to take it literally. However, if the Bible says something which is ridiculous and stupid, then you choose to take it allegorically. In other words, you modify your method of Biblical interpretation depending on whether you know it conflicts with the truth, and you know the truth from ... <drum roll please> ... science.

[Editor's note: actually, the phrase "four corners of the Earth" is rarely used in conversation, and it is never used in a document intended for use as a scientific reference. Furthermore, North, South, East, and West are names for directions rather than "corners"]

[Quoted] "In Matthew 4:8, the Devil takes Jesus up to the highest mountain, from which he can see "all the world's kingdoms"."

This was probably most likely a vision and or a miracle similar to the Trasfiguration.

Ah, so when a physical impossibility occurs and you can't explain it away with your usual inconsistent method of Biblical interpretation, you simply dismiss it as a miracle, which needn't make any sense. And here I was saying that the Biblical inerrancy is irrational ... how silly of me.

[Quoted] "In Matthew 24:29, it is said that the "stars will fall from the sky"."

This is a prediction that could be indicating a shuting down of the stars by God Himself.

Ah, so the stars will simply shut down? How does the word "fall" translate to "shut down?" This goes beyond non-literal interpretation, into the realm of outright re-writing. Again, you know the truth from science, and since the Bible is woefully inconsistent with the truth, you choose to interpret it in a wildly optimistic way, arbitrarily changing its words and intent in order to suit your purposes.

Face it; the Bible describes the Earth as a flat object suspended in an enormous, external gravity field rather than a spherical object which generates its own gravity, and it describes the stars as tiny objects relative to Earth. You shouldn't bury your head in the sand forever; enlightenment is its own reward.

[Quoted] "A literal interpretation of the above portions of the Bible will lead to the conclusion that the Sun and Moon revolve around the Earth, which sits on pillars and is flat so that Jesus can see all its kingdoms from one mountaintop. It also has four corners, and the stars are but tiny objects in the sky which will fall to Earth on judgement day. In other words, literal Biblical inerrancy is only for the ignorant, the brainwashed, and the stupid. Smart Christians do exist in the world, but unlike you, they don't think the Bible is scientifically accurate."

That's only your opinion. There are some scholars who would disagree.

No theologian would have disagreed with this interpretation until scientists proved conclusively that it was impossible, at which point they began creatively interpreting the Bible in order to maintain their fanciful delusion of "Biblical inerrancy". It is, and always has been science which expands the boundaries of human knowledge, not religion. Religion may serve many social functions, some arguably good, some arguably bad. Many great leaders in history have described it as a useful tool of social control, which kept people in line through fear because they were assumed to be too stupid to know right from wrong. The modern Santa Claus mythology performs a similar function for children who aren't yet old enough to know right from wrong without the fear of authority: "he knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness' sake". However, religion and science have rarely gone well together, and in the case of Christianity, it has a history of being exceptionally hostile to science.

Only so-called "modern, moderate Christianity", with its dilution of "traditional values" with modern ethics, is what I would consider morally acceptable (and even then, there's a wide range of attitudes, some of which border on fundamentalist bigotry while others draw heavy inspiration from Buddhism and humanism). The traditional Christianity of the past, and of fundamentalism, is an immoral blight upon the history of mankind.

[Quoted] "Not only does the word "circle" describe a flat object, but it would be impossible for Satan to show Jesus all the world's kingdoms from a single mountaintop if it were not flat."

Actually scholars beleive that a more precise translation of the Hebrew word of khug is sphere.

The mere fact that one must wrangle over preferable translations of particular words is yet more proof that the Bible is just another piece of literature rather than a piece of scientific evidence. Its interpretations are purely subjective because they represent third-hand hearsay rather than direct observation of events or phenomena, and in your case, they are subject to arbitrary judgements as to whether they should be taken literally or non-literally. Its numerous and grievous scientific impossibilities are dismissed as "non-literal", and when that fails, they are either ignored or described as "miracles". At its heart, it has no more scientific validity than the Santa Claus myth.

The book I refered to is "Science: Was the Bible Ahead of Its Time?" by Ralph O. Muncaster, a former sceptic, and a professor at Vanguard University.

You are merely repeating your appeal to authority, and appeals to authority are inherently fallacious. By the way, Vanguard University is just another Bible thumper school. Read the following excerpt from http://www.vanguard.edu:

"Founded in Los Angeles in 1920 as a Bible training institute, the university was recognized by the State of California as a degree granting college in 1939. The college moved to its present campus in Costa Mesa in 1950, and has developed into a comprehensive Christian university of liberal arts and sciences."

What a surprise that a creationist book was written by somebody at a Christian school! What an interesting coincidence that this so-called "alternate scientific theory" called creationism has no adherents whatsoever apart from people who happen to be followers of a particular religion!

[Editor's note: don't you love the way creationists "forget" to mention that their authoritative scientific sources just happen to come from Bible schools? How convenient that Southern California Bible College changed its name to "Vanguard University"! They obviously hope you won't bother looking it up]

[Quoted] "Fallacious appeal to authority."

Huh? If you won't accept an authority no wonder you won't accept the Bible? Have a problem with authority?

Absolutely! Don't you get it? The scientific method is an approach for discerning the truth about the universe exclusively through reason and the senses, without the need for appeals to authority. Appeals to authority are inherently irrational and fallacious. In fact, the "appeal to authority" is the name of a logical fallacy! If you want to prove something, you have to be able to explain yourself, and it will simply not do to say "Mr. Authority says so".

It doesn't surprise me that you believe in appeals to authority. The reliance upon the irrational, fallacious appeal to authority is one of the foundations of Christian fundamentalism. Rather than upholding individual human rights, it upholds rules dictated by an authority. Rather than encouraging people to think for themselves, it encourages them to blindly accept what an authority tells them. Rather than upholding absolute rules of right and wrong that transcend everyone (even God), it defines morality as obedience to the authority of God's will.

[Quoted] "Fallacious appeal to anonymous authority."

Sorry, Dr. John E. Dewhurst of Air Products and Chemicals Inc. Research chemist in RIM technology.

Reaction Injection Moulding is interesting stuff, since I happen to be in the plastics industry as well. However, it has absolutely no relation whatsoever to biology. It is therefore not only a fallacious appeal to authority, but a fallacious appeal to an irrelevant authority. I am arguing with you, not Mr. Dewhurst. You must come up with your own supporting arguments, and appeals to his irrelevant authority don't qualify. You don't hear me simply listing off sample names of scientists, the vast majority of whom accept evolution theory, do you? If you have no argument, then do the honourable thing and admit defeat. Name-dropping only makes you look irrational.

[Quoted] Nothing but an unsupported, subjective opinion.

In a sense same as you.

No, because I explain every one of my arguments, while you have nothing but appeals to authority. Biblical quotes are fallacious and irrational appeals to authority. Chemist name-dropping is a fallacious and irrational appeal to authority. Book name-dropping is a fallacious and irrational appeal to authority. You must be able to explain your argument, and you have utterly failed to do so.

[Quoted] Every species on Earth can be shown to be highly adapted to its environment.

Then what was the point of Evolution?

Who said it had to have a "point"? What's the point of gravity? What's the point of electromagnetism? It simply exists. Animal populations eventually adapt to their environment, and this can be seen in every animal species on Earth. It amuses me greatly that you couldn't come up with a better comeback than rhetorically asking what the "point" of Evolution is.

That is extiction and it is a bit different concept for a slightly different reason.

Wrong. Extinction is a result of natural selection, which is one of the mechanisms driving evolution.

[Quoted] "Human alterations to the environment have provided us with direct observation of the mechanism of natural selection in action, as certain species have thrived due to contact with us while others have perished ..."

But that is not Evolution in the traditional sense.

Yes it is. You don't understand evolution theory. This is a classic creationist dodge; every time someone shows them an example of evolution, simply say "that's not what I define as evolution". Of course, by defining evolution as a bizarre, narrow strawman distortion of the real thing, you make it easy for yourself to [say] that all of the myriad evidence for evolution doesn't count.

The real problem is that you have no idea what evolution is! So please, since you claim to be quite familiar with it, define it for me. I would be very interested in knowing what bizarre strawman distortion of the theory of evolution found its way into your mind.

Once again not evolution in the traditional sense. Why don't we seen simple life evolving into more complex forms?

Evolution is not "simple life evolving into more complex forms". Your strawman won't go away, will it?

[Quoted] "Heritable changes through evolution are not caused by physical alterations to a particular living specimen during his lifetime."

Then how? I was always taught that a specimen adapted to its surrounding and passed on the new traits. How else did more complex forms elvolve? And don't say mutations. Most mutations are detrimental not helpful.

So I'm supposed to explain again for you? I go through this on my webpage already, and it obviously didn't penetrate your thick fog of religious indoctrination, so I don't see what can be gained from repeating myself here.

[Editor's note: at this point, I tried to give him a précis of the related arguments, but you might do well to examine the Arguments page on this site or better yet, the very detailed Mutations FAQ at TalkOrigins.org]

However, since my page apparently contains too many words for you to digest in a single sitting, here's a very brief recap:

  1. The idea of "detrimental" or "helpful" mutations is a misrepresentation. It assumes that all of life is arranged in a hierarchy where a mutation are either "good" (moving them up on the ladder) or "bad" (killing them or moving them down on the ladder). This derives from standard Creationist doctrine in which life forms are defined by their resemblance to God, and since humans supposedly resemble God the most, we are the most "advanced". Since you are naturally resistant to rational ideas, it simply doesn't occur to you that this hierarchy doesn't exist in evolution theory. In reality, the vast majority of "mutations" are neither "detrimental" or "harmful", but rather, they simply cause variation. For example, the white human could be considered a mutation upon the black human. This "mutation" is neither "detrimental" or "harmful"; it is only an example of species variation.

  2. Every animal species has significant variation within its population. Just as human beings vary from stupid to smart, short to tall, black to white, mesomorph to endomorph, etc., every other animal population throughout history has incorporated significant variation. Look at dogs: a giant mastiff and a tiny chihuahua are both part of the same species! If the environment changes or a sub-population migrates, then this will tend to "push" the group toward one end of its spectrum or the other, depending on what is more suitable to the new environment. Hence, the overall characteristics of the species will slightly change. Its median characteristics will change, and the boundaries of its population distribution will also change so that the next time a change occurs, there are some new possibilities that weren't there before. Many such changes over a long period of time will result in a dramatically different creature, and could split one species into two.

  3. The idea that evolution progresses from "simple" to "complex" (with us presumably at the end of this progression) is a creationist strawman distortion. In reality, the most highly evolved creatures on Earth are arguably the insects, not us. We simply represent another branch of the family tree, that happened to evolve along a different path. Even the notion of "complexity", as described by creationists, is a severe distortion. Creationist always assume that we are the pinnacle; that we are the most complex and advanced creature on Earth. How do you know that? We're the smartest, with the most technology, but from a biological standpoint, what makes you think we are more complex than a relatively "primitive" creature like a dog or a cockroach? Are our eyes more complex than an insect's eyes? Are our four limbs a more complex structure than an insect's six? Is our skin more complex than the feathered outer covering of a bird? Is our digestive system more complex than that of a cow? The creationist doctrine of the [linear] progressive hierarchy of life is religious dogma with no basis in logic or fact.

[Editor's note: it has been said that the "tree of life" should have been described as a bush, so that the analogy would be more accurate. The problem with the "tree" analogy is the hierarchical imagery, and the notion that as you "climb" the tree, you will eventually find something at the top]

[Quoted] "Do you have even the FOGGIEST idea of what evolution is?"

Appearently more so then you.

Yes, I may understand the scientific version of evolution theory, but I obviously lack your deep and comprehensive understanding of the creationist strawman version. Please enlighten me.

[Quoted] "Sounds to me like you don't even know what evolution or pseudoscience are, so your attempt to equate them doesn't carry much weight."

Neither do your arguments.

Then prove it, by poking a hole in them rather than relying on your arsenal of logical fallacies. Appeals to authority and strawman distortions don't constitute a valid rebuttal. The only constitute a public demonstration of irrationality.

[Quoted] "If I wanted God's blessing, or yours, I would have asked for it."

That's the point of a blessing it is usually not asked for.

Hence the fact that it's pushy and annoying. It's not only unasked for, but it's also unwanted. If I want to deal with pushy salesmen trying to make me accept things I don't ask for, I can go shop for a used car.

[Editor's note: when someone tries to push his religion on you despite full knowledge that you're not interested, that is incredibly rude. I wish religionists would learn to understand this. You don't see atheists hanging around church parking lots trying to "convert" people, do you? I'll give an argument if I'm challenged, but I'm not going to seek out religious people and harass them against their will]

[Quoted] "No thanks. I vastly prefer the "original sin" of human knowledge to the "love of Christ"."

But the love of Christ offers so much more. I have experience it. See my link.

Actually, human knowledge offers far more. 1500 years of Christianity produced nothing of value, and science was at a virtual standstill until the resurgence of "heretical" scientific thought a few centuries ago, starting with men such as Galileo. In ancient Rome they had aquaducts, but in 17th century England they threw feces out their windows into the streets. That's Christian advancement for you. Since the rise of secularism, we have made more scientific discoveries and technological advancements than we made throughout the rest of human history. It has been estimated that more than half of the scientists throughout all of human history lived in the last century. After one last gasp from Christian fundamentalism (Hitler's Nazi regime) and dictatorial monarchism (Stalin's communist regime), the rise of the secular humanist state has produced living conditions far superior to those enjoyed by human beings at any other time in history.

The only "rewards" of Christianity lie after death (where no one can come back and ask for a refund if it doesn't go as planned), and in mundane events that are optimistically interpreted as miracles by blinkered believers.

Mike
30yr old with corrected ToF with Pulmonary Atresia
http://www.tchin.org/pdheart/members/m/michael-3.htm

[Editor's note: I decided to go check out the link, and it's the story of his health problems. According to his page, he was born with a serious heart problem and the doctors thought he would die. When he was still alive after three days, the doctors realized their initial assessment was wrong, and they rushed him off for "shunt surgery", after which his health immediately improved dramatically. He had more surgical procedures at age 6, age 10, and age 17. At age 22, they thought they'd found a major blockage and they performed an invasive procedure, to discover that it wasn't as bad on the inside as it looked from the outside. He's still alive, but naturally, he considers all of their efforts inconsequential, and he credits his survival solely to God]

That's a wonderful story about how medical science pulled you back from the brink, but I don't see what it has to do with creationism. In fact, if you had been born five hundred years ago in the days when scientists were considered "heretics" and the Bible was upheld by the state (just the way you want it), none of the medical techniques and technologies used to save you would have existed. You would have died. Do you really think that you were saved because your mother believed in Jesus, and that all of the medical specialists and expensive technologies were unnecessary? You should get down on your knees and thank science, not Jesus.

Frankly, I think it's an act of shameful ingratitude for you to thank God for your survival, rather than the scientists and doctors who created the techniques and technologies that kept you alive.

Continue to Michael Miller, Page 3

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: