My content from ESPN.com this week:
* My second attempt to project this year’s first round. I’ll do another one on Tuesday, and a final one the morning of the draft.
* An updated ranking of the top 25 prospects in the minors.
* This week’s Klawchat.
And this week’s links:
- PETA is trying to scam people into thinking there’s a link between dairy consumption and autism. Actual science tip: There isn’t.
- Some actual good news in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. And we need some good news there, because the alternative is seriously scary shit.
- I know it went viral a bit yesterday, but if you haven’t seen this story about a five-year-old transgendered boy, it’s well worth the seven minutes. That child is lucky to have parents who realized nothing else mattered but taking care of his needs – and that this wasn’t something they could or should try to change.
- Why is giving kids healthy school lunch options a political issue? I know the answer, by the way (it starts with the letter $). But it’s still disgusting.
- Also from NPR, why bacon smells so good, explained via chemistry. That’s important research right there, people.
Finally, the highlight response from my Twitter arguments with a couple of creationists, most of whom trotted out the same tired and very wrong arguments against evolution, was this doozy (and please don’t go on Twitter and harass the poster):
@keithlaw nope. Also worth noting that I don't believe in carbon dating because Bible says atmosphere functioned differently before Flood.
— Andy Black (@IrvingAg13) May 28, 2014
Carbon dating is just another godless conspiracy, I guess.
It’s ridiculous statements like Mr Black’s that give creationists (and Christians) a bad rap. Don’t tell people what the Bible says something when you know darn well it doesn’t. (and for what it’s worth, I believe in creation and evolution; they don’t have go be mutually exclusive).
I recall first hand how painful it was to shed the Creationism of my youth, so I feel bad for the guy. He may come around eventually.
Your exchange is making me wonder what the correlation is between belief in sabermetrics and atheism. My guess is it’s a diagonal line with slope 1, with very, very few outliers.
Guess I’m an outlier.
The real problem with carbon dating is that it can’t account for the possibility that the world was created in a mature state. We can see this in the Biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve–they were created as a man and a woman, not as babies. Even if you had a 100% accurate age test and pointed it at them, it would have returned their developmental age, not their existental age. It’s not farfetched to think the world was created similarly.
I’m a Christian who accepts both the old earth and evolution (and sabermetrics), and my problem with the appearance of age argument is that if you follow it to its logical conclusion, God could’ve created the world yesterday with the appearance of age and we’d never know. And it also basically removes any warrant for attempting to understand the world through rational inquiry, which the early natural philosophers (scientists, many of them believers) would have found repugnant.
BIP, I’d recommend the book Origins for a good Christian perspective on the whole issue: http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Christian-Perspectives-Evolution-Intelligent/dp/159255573X
The evolution “debate” isn’t about religion except for people who equate evolutionary theory with a refutation of religion because it deleted God’s apparent role in the creation of the human race. And there are certainly those on the side of evolution, notably Dawkins, who have attempted to connect the two. But I certainly never discuss religion at all when pointing out to people that evolution is real, nor will you ever see me attack someone else’s religiosity. I’ve never really discussed my own views on religion in public and I doubt I ever will.
But if you believe that humans evolved from primates, then you’re de facto saying you don’t believe in the Biblical creation of Adam and Eve. And if you don’t believe in the first book of the Bible, many would argue that there’s not a whole lot of value in believing the rest of it. So from a purely Christian perspective, I think there is an either/or discussion…whether you chose to comment on religion or not, it’s still there.
Clearly there are other world views that would allow for different point of view (e.g., a creator that started everything, followed by evolution), but that’s not a fundamental Christian world view.
“And if you don’t believe in the first book of the Bible, many would argue that there’s not a whole lot of value in believing the rest of it.”
I find it troubling that many Christians spout this kind of thing. Richard Dawkins agrees with you. That should be a red flag.
Accepting evolution doesn’t mean trashing the Bible or God. Not sure why this is difficult to understand. (BTW, C.S. Lewis accepted evolution. So does N.T. Wright.)
Seth – I’m not sure what is “troubling” about having a fundamental belief in the Bible. Otherwise, who gets to decide what parts are to be believed/followed and what parts can be ignored? Plenty of trouble to be found once you step down that slippery slope.
As for CS Lewis and evolution, I think it’s fair to say his views on that changed over the course of his life (towards a more fundamental view, not towards a stronger belief in evolution).
Mike, I have a fundamental belief in the Bible. We just differ on how to interpret certain passages. I used to be where you are, so I get where you’re coming from. I read the Bible every day. Accepting evolution hasn’t upended my love of Scripture.
I think we’ve hijacked this post enough, don’t you? If you want to continue to dialogue, I’d be happy to, but let’s do it offline. (seth at heasley dot net).
I don’t mind hijacks at all, as long as everyone keeps it civil, which you all have so far.
I will say that Mike’s statement, “if you don’t believe in the first book of the Bible, many would argue that there’s not a whole lot of value in believing the rest of it,” doesn’t hold water for me. Ignoring the “many would argue that” bit as unnecessary, I think the general implication here is that someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ but does not accept the entirety of the Bible as the literal word of God is not a Christian. If I’m off, let me know, but I can’t imagine very many theologians would accept that point of view. Indeed, Richard Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, has been quite clear on that point.
Keith – I wasn’t saying or implying that someone who doesn’t accept the entirety of the Bible as the word of God is not a Christian. I think that’s a question that Christians can vigorously debate without dividing over.
My point initially was only that, for those Christians that DO take the entire Bible as the literal word of God, your comments about evolution are de facto comments about religion. As much as you may want to separate those concepts in your own mind and in your own arguments, there is a certain portion of people for whom they are inseparable.
On a separate note, I wasn’t on the debate team in high school, but isn’t that appealing to authority when you reference Richard Harries, or when CS Lewis was raised earlier?
@Mike: It’s not an appeal to authority, primarily because we’re not debating the truth value of a statement or assertion, but the question of whether it is possible to combine beliefs in evolution and the divinity of Christ. That link also has a good explanation of when an appeal to authority is a valid argument rather than a fallacious one.
Keith, your link states, “You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true” is the logical fallacy. How is that NOT exactly what you did? Perhaps if every Christian leader and theologian agreed with Harries position you could fall back on the idea that your appeal to authority should not be rejected, but we both know that is not the case.
I fully accept that it is possible for people to believe in both the divinity of Christ and evolution. I would be a fool to debate what people do and don’t believe and their justification for it.
That link also states: “…nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.” And as this isn’t a case of empirical evidence but of whether a pair of beliefs (belief in the creation story in Genesis and belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ) are separable, it is reasonable and proper to point to an expert who has greater understanding.
So if I find one expert theologian that disagrees with Harries, does it cancel him out? Because I bet there’s at least one out there.
No, Mike, because you’re using a straw man. We are not debating whether it is right to ignore everything post-Genesis if you reject the Biblical account of creation, but whether it is possible.
As I said this morning…I’ve never once disputed or debated that it’s POSSIBLE to hold those beliefs (I’m not yelling, I just don’t know how to bold). Of course it’s possible, but that doesn’t mean anything other than itself. I would have happily conceded that to you before we even started digging into the subject.
I’m not sure what value there is, though, in agreeing that it’s “possible” to hold a certain set of beliefs.
Keith-Avid ESPN reader, occasional blog reader, but with your help for bringing the vaccine thing to the public, I thank you. My son was autistic when he was born. That vaccine stuff is so……….wrong.
Oh, and for evolution vs. creation, it’s all a faith argument since nobody was there to see it.
I must confess, Andy Black brings the crazy pretty high and tight. I just wanted to say thanks for posting the vaccine link. I work for an international public health agency in DC and the conspiracy theory stuff drives me crazy. The misconceptions are quite difficult to stamp out. Keep up the fine work on ESPN and here.