Satan And Evolution

According to Sun Myung Moon "The theory of evolution is a satanic theory".

Here is more from Sun Myung Moon:

The theory of evolution is declining and Father absolutely rejects it. Because in order to advance, there must be give and take between plus and minus. There is no way a lower creation, like an amoeba can advance to a higher level.

There are two types of bird which seem exactly the same. They are the same size and have the same bone structure, only their color is a little different. Lets say these two birds get married. Can they lay eggs? It is not possible. Even though they look so similar, they are different types. God made a division of the seed between species. He protects each one with absolute clarity. The theory of evolution is a satanic theory. Father emphasizes that love proceeds multiplication in heading toward the destiny of the love of God. Without the love of God no creature could exist on the face of the earth.

Father already said evolution was wrong. Another argument going on these days is also wrong. People are asking the question, which came first-concept or reality? This is another thing Father is teaching the Korean audiences. For example, when the eye was created, did it know that sunlight would exist? No, it was made by some Will to see the sunlight. Who had that knowledge? The eye itself? No. This same "somebody" knew an eyelash would be needed to keep dust out of the eye and also that tears would be necessary to keep the eyes from drying out. The creator had the concept of how all parts would fit together in the whole. This shows that concept was first. Father's conclusion is that God exists.

I have no idea what he means when he talks about the "give and take between plus and minus". I didn't know that birds got married. Perhaps if the two birds had sex one of them might lay an egg. Because "Father" knows absolutely nothing about evolution he concludes that God exists.

TalkOrigins has a response to Sun Myung Moon:

1. Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.
2. Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.
3. Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.
4. Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.
5. Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.
6. Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.
7. Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.

I agree with TalkOrigins. I also think that Jerry Coyne and Greg Graffin think the same way. Morals come from people because of evolutionary biology, not gods or the Bible. It is in our own self-interest to survive. If everyone was totally "evil" we would wipe out the human race, or so much of it that the only humans left would always be trying to kill one another. This is not a very useful model for existence. Having sex and babies and caring for and cooperating with one another is what keeps the human race from going extinct. In other words moral behaviour benefits the continuation of the species.

"Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral." I think this is worth repeating. Religions foment bigotry. Many religious people do not want to contemplate this.

"Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others" is a wonderful expression. It so perfectly describes the religious, especially how the religious feel and think about atheists. I realize that this how the religious view atheists, especially the atheists that they label as militant. I do not believe that this view is correct. Atheists simply don't believe in any gods. Nothing more and nothing less. Some may be immoral, some may have differing political views and so on. But there are other labels for those things. Some atheists argue very vigorously about their lack of belief. I don't know of any who believe that someone who believes in a god is evil and immoral and should and will be condemned to eternal hellfire. The same cannot be said of theists.

Quote Of Note - Louise M. Antony

"Think now about our personal relations — how we love our parents, our children, our life partners, our friends.  To say that the moral worth of these individuals depends on the existence of God is to say that these people are, in themselves, worth nothing..." - Louise M. Antony

Cyber Theft

Today is Cyber Monday. Just in case you didn’t already know. A rather apt name, don’t you think? (At least in the sense of fictional cyborgs, like the Borg of Star Trek fame.) Millions of American consumers robotically spending their money when they are supposed to be working. A day to forget about that which is ethical, because everyone else is. Wouldn’t want to miss out on that big sale over something as mundane as ethics, would you?

Isn’t all of this basically a form of theft? After all, if you are at work, are you supposed to be shopping and spending your money? I thought work was the place to earn your money. If you are not working, aren’t you stealing from those who employ you?

Yet, all of this seems to be sanctioned somehow. It’s as if one of the most religious nations on earth has decided it is OK to replace “Thou shalt not steal” with “God says it’s OK to steal on Cyber Monday.”

Since the religious are a majority in the United States, and the atheists are a minority, the behavior of many on Cyber Monday seems to disprove the religious claim of moral superiority. (You know, the argument that believing in God is the source of all morality, therefore atheists are incapable of being moral. What happens to that argument when the believers behave immorally?)

Forgive me Father for I have sinned. Now let’s get back to shopping!

Living Our Values

Do we all share the same values?

Overall I liked Obama’s speech last night. Here is my favorite part:

To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. And that is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists, because living our values doesn't make us weaker. It makes us safer, and it makes us stronger.

I trust that when the president says “our values” he means the “values” that are the exact opposite of the “values” of George W. Bush. That is my audacious hope. Telling lies, killing people, invading other countries, taking from the poor to give to rich, ignoring people in desperate need, and so on, are not my values.

“We don’t have a god telling us what to do”

From In the name of no father by Rob Cullivan:

However, she and her atheist companions agree on one thing – morality doesn’t depend on theism.

“What keeps a society safe and running smoothly is what morality is all about,” Knox says. “I think what we have to answer to is our society and how much you want to be part of that society.”

Like Tuppman and Smythe, Knox questions relying on a higher power to make oneself a good person.

“When you do not have daddy in the sky telling you what to do and waiting for you to be responsible, you take responsibility for yourself,” she says.

‘Religulous’

To varying degrees, all three people enjoyed comedian Bill Maher’s film “Religulous,” still in theaters. Maher’s movie takes satirical aim at Western monotheistic religions as well as such beliefs as Scientology. On the other hand, they all took issue with Maher’s ridicule of believers.

“As a Unitarian, I think we would not ridicule somebody else for their beliefs,” Knox says. “We’re humanitarian. We believe in compassion.”

Which is one reason why Tuppman, for example, says she’s never liked the Christian story of a loving God sending Jesus to die on the cross for our sins, nor for that matter, the doctrine of original sin, the idea humans are conceived in a state lacking holiness resulting from Adam and Eve’s fall.

“I didn’t ask to be born, and I thought why should I have guilt on top of it,” Tuppman says.

Although all three believe humans suffer because of ignorant religious beliefs and have chafed under theocratic governments, they acknowledged that when militant atheists are in control – for example, in the former Soviet Union – humanity doesn’t always advance either.

Knox adds she opposes coercion in general, whether in the name of God or the name of no god.

“Separation of church and state is the best approach in the world,” she says.

There are so many right-wing religious fundamentalists who equate atheism with communism, yet it is obviously not true that they are the same thing. I believe that what Carol Knox says so well is true of most atheists, that we oppose “coercion in general, whether in the name of God or the name of no god.”

Blind obedience to communism (or any other political organization) or to God (or any form of deity) is not the answer.

I wish that we could all find common ground. I believe that we may agree on more things than we realize. I also believe that some of the things that atheists believe can be found in the Bible, and some of the things that right-wing religious fundamentalists believe can be found in socialism. To throw the baby out with the bath water is not very smart. Condemnation of the whole of something just because you disagree with a part of it does not seem very wise. Let’s take the good out of things wherever we can find it. Tolerance does not mean submission, and tolerance does not mean silence.