“One Nation Under God, was added in 1954 during the McCarthy era. “In God We Trust” was added onto money in 1956.

Related posts

• [UPDATED] Thousands of Tax Payer Dollars to Add Engraving to Capitol Visitor Center (5)
• What Makes Us Uniquely Human? (2)
• Separation of church and State Benefits Everyone (26)
• Conversations With christians – Beth 3 – Where Do We Go From Here? EDIT (16)
• Conversation With Anne About Religion, Truth, Science and History (4)

Evolution in Greece

While the Greeks did not specifically refer to their concepts as “evolution”, they did have a philosophical notion of descent with modification. Several different Greek philosophers subscribed to a concept of origination, arguing that all things originated from water or air. Another common concept was the idea that all things descended from one central, guiding principle.

• Thales ( 624 – 546 BCE): asserted that all things originated from water.
• Anaximander (610 – 546 BCE): With his assertion that physical forces, rather than supernatural means, create order in the universe, Anaximander can be considered the first scientist. He is known to have conducted the earliest recorded scientific experiment. He suggested that living beings gradually developed from moisture with warmth. He also thought that the first humans were born, fully formed, from the wombs of fish, since they needed care for a long time.
• Anaximenes (585 – 528 BCE): Thought air was the principle of all things, and regarded the process as a thinning or thickening.
• Empedocles (490 – 430 BCE): Thought that the first creatures were not fully formed but consisted of unconnected limbs. He established the concept of everything in the universe being made up of four elements: fire, air, water and earth, which was the standard for the next two thousand years.
• Aristotle (384  – 322 BCE): The Great Chain of Being: He thought there was a transition between the living and the nonliving, and theorized that in all things there is a constant desire to move from the lower to the higher, finally becoming the divine.
• Lucretius (99 – 55 BCE): He was the first to suggest extinctions and that the survivors survived by “cunning or speed”.

Medieval Theories

During medieval times, the idea of evolution was quite out of fashion, since the time was dominated by the christian theory of special creation. This idea, which argued that all living things came into existence in unchanging forms due to divine will, was notably in opposition to the concept of evolution.

Medieval thinking was also, oddly enough, confused by the idea of spontaneous generation, which stated that living things can appear fully formed from inorganic matter. In this view, maggots came from rotting meat, frogs came from slime, etc. This sort of a concept prevented both genetic thinking and speculation about evolution or descent with modification. Nevertheless, a few philosophers theorized about some sort of teleological principle by which species might derive from a divine form.

James Ussher – 1581-1656

The traditional Judeo-Christian version of creationism was strongly reinforced by James Ussher, a 17th century Anglican archbishop of Armagh in Northern Ireland.  By counting the generations of the Bible and adding them to modern history, he fixed the date of creation at October 23, 4004 B.C.  During Ussher’s lifetime, debate focused only on the details of his calculations rather than on the approach.  Dr. Charles Lightfoot of Cambridge University in England had the last word.  He proclaimed that the time of creation was 9:00 A.M. on October 23, 4004 B.C.

This belief that the earth and life on it are only about 6000 years old fit neatly with the then prevalent theory of the “Great Chain of Being.”  This held that God created an infinite and continuous series of life forms, each one grading into the next, from simplest to most complex, and that all organisms, including humans, were created in their present form relatively recently and that they have remained unchanged since then.  Given these strongly held beliefs, it is not surprising that 17th and 18th century European biology consisted mainly of the description of plants and animals as they are with virtually no attempt to explain how they got to be that way.

Immanuel Kant – 1724-1804

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant developed a concept of descent that is relatively close to modern thinking; he did in a way anticipate Darwinian thinking. Based on similarities between organisms, Kant speculated that they may have come from a single ancestral source. In a thoroughly modern speculation, he mused that “an orang-outang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking-in short, that lie may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason, which shall gradually develop itself by social culture”.

Biological Conceptions of Evolution

The preceding discussion has focused on the philosophical components of evolutionary theory, but precursors exist for its biological aspects as well. Indeed, as mentioned above, by Darwin’s time the concept of descent with modification was hardly controversial – it was only the mechanism, the rate of modification, and the ultimate origin of life that were being debated. Darwin’s major breakthrough consisted in providing a plausible mechanism to drive change in organisms.

Carolus Linnaeus – 1707-1778

Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné, is considered the father of modern taxonomy for his work in hierarchical classification of various organisms. At first, he believed in the fixed nature of species, but he was later swayed by hybridization experiments in plants, which could produce new species. However, he maintained his belief in special creation in the Garden of Eden, consistent with the Christian doctrine to which he was quite devoted. He still saw the new species created by plant hybridization to have been part of God’s plan, and never considered the idea of open-ended, undirected evolution not mediated by the divine.

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600′s by John Ray, 1627-1705, an English naturalist and ordained minister.  However, it was Linnaeus who used this system to name us Homo sapiens (literally, “wise men”).  He also placed us in the order Primates (a larger, more inclusive category than our genus) along with all of the apes, monkeys, and prosimians.  This was very controversial at the time since it implied that people were part of nature, along with other animals and plants.  In addition, it meant that we were biologically closer to the other primates than to all other animals.

Late in the 18th century, a small number of European scientists began to quietly suggest that life forms are not fixed.  The French mathematician and naturalist, George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, 1707-1788, actually said that living things do change through time.  He speculated that this was somehow a result of influences from the environment or even chance.  He believed that the earth must be much older than 6000 years.  In 1774, in fact, he speculated that the earth must be at least 75,000 years old.  He also suggested that humans and apes are related.  Buffon was careful to hide his radical views in a limited edition 44 volume natural history book series called Histoire Naturelle (1749-1804).  By doing this, he avoided broad public criticism.

Buffon was an early advocate of the Linnaean classification system.  He was also a quiet pioneer in asserting that species can change over generations.  However, he publicly rejected the idea that species could evolve into other species.  One of his most significant contributions to the biological sciences was his insistence that natural phenomena must be explained by natural laws rather than theological doctrine.

Erasmus Darwin – 1731-1802

Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin  was also a distinguished naturalist with his own intriguing ideas about evolution. While he never thought of natural selection, he did argue that all life could a have a single common ancestor, though he struggled with the concepts of a mechanism for this descent. He also discussed the effects of competition and sexual selection on possible changes in species. Like Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin subscribed to a theory stating that the use or disuse of parts could in itself make them grow or shrink, and that unconscious striving by the organism was responsible for adaptation.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck – 1744-1829

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s  theory of evolution was a good try for his time, but has now been discredited by experimental evidence and the much more plausible mechanism of modification proposed by Darwin. Lamarck saw species as not being fixed and immutable, but rather in a constantly changing state. He presented a multitude of different theories that he believed combined to explain descent with modification of these changing species.

Lamarck subscribed to a number of what we now know to be false beliefs about inheritance. First, like Erasmus Darwin, he argued for strong effects of the use and disuse of parts, which he thought would make the relevant parts change size or shape in accordance with their use. Second, Lamarck believed that all organisms fundamentally wanted to adapt themselves to their environment, and so they strove to become better adapted. The belief most commonly associated with Lamarck today is his idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This theory stated that an organism could pass on to its offspring any characteristics it had acquired in its lifetime. For example, if a man exercised and thus developed strong muscles, his offspring would then have strong muscles at birth.

George Cuvier - 1769-1832

Lamarck did not invent the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics but stated it clearly and publicly in an 1809 publication entitled Philosophie Zoologique. It was relatively easy for the French scientist, George Cuvier, and other critics of Lamarck to discredit his theory.   If it was correct, the children of cowboys who have developed bowed legs as a result of a lifetime of riding horses would be born with bowed legs as well.  That, of course, does not occur.  Likewise, the children of professional weight lifters are not born with enlarged muscles.

While Lamarck’s explanation of evolution was incorrect, it is unfair to label him a bad scientist.  In fact, he was at the cutting edge of biological research for his time.  He and George Cuvier were largely responsible for making biology a distinct branch of science.

Despite his criticism of Lamarck, Cuvier did not reject the idea that there had been earlier life forms.  In fact, he was the first scientist to document extinctions of ancient animals and was an internationally respected expert on dinosaurs.  However, he rejected the idea that their existence implied that evolution had occurred — he dogmatically maintained the “fixity” of species.

Cuvier advocated the theory of catastrophism, as did most other leading scientists of his day.  This held that there have been violent and sudden natural catastrophes such as great floods and the rapid formation of major mountain chains.  Plants and animals living in those parts of the world where such events occurred were often killed off according to Cuvier.  Then new life forms moved in from other areas.  As a result, the fossil record for a region shows abrupt changes in species.  Cuvier’s explanation relied solely on scientific evidence rather than biblical interpretation.

A careful examination of European geological deposits in the early 19th century led the English lawyer and geologist, Charles Lyell, 1797-1875, to conclude that Cuvier’s catastrophism theory was wrong.  He believed that there primarily have been slower, progressive changes.  In his three volume Principles of Geology (1830-1833), Lyell documented the fact that the earth must be very old and that it has been subject to the same sort of natural processes in the past that operate today in shaping the land.  These forces include erosion, earthquakes, glacial movements, volcanoes, and even the decomposition of plants and animals.

Lyell provided conclusive evidence for the theory of uniformitarianism, which had been developed originally by the late 18th century Scottish geologist, James Hutton - 1726-1797.  This held that the natural forces now changing the shape of the earth’s surface have been operating in the past much the same way.  In other words, the present is the key to understanding the past.

This revolutionary idea was instrumental in leading Charles Darwin to his understanding of biological evolution in the 1830′s.   However, it was not until the late 19th century that most educated people in the Western world finally rejected the theory of catastrophism in favor of uniformitarianism.

Today, we know that our planet has been shaped by occasional catastrophic events, such as bombardment of large meteors, in addition to the comparatively slower natural processes suggested by uniformitarianism.   All of these events have potentially affected the rate and direction of biological evolution.

Thomas Malthus – 1766-1834

Thomas Malthus’ theory of population growth was in the end what inspired Darwin to develop the theory of natural selection. According to Malthus, populations produce many more offspring than can possibly survive on the limited resources generally available. According to Malthus, poverty, famine, and disease were natural outcomes that resulted from overpopulation. However, Malthus believed that divine forces were ultimately responsible for such outcomes, which, though natural, were designed by God.

Robert Grant – 1793-1874

He wrote Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. It argued not only for biological evolution, but chemical and cosmological as well. It was largely scorned and was more of a philosophical work than a scientific one. But it was still very  influential on Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both independently developed the idea of the mechanism of natural selection after reading Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). However, Darwin had been turning the problem over in his mind for some twenty years before he first published The Origin of Species. Moreover, Darwin was much more willing to explore the implications of natural selection, particularly in relation to humans, than Wallace was. In addition, Wallace was a champion of rather radical social causes and later openly embraced spiritualism – all elements that resulted in the downplay of his role in the discovery of natural selection.

While George Cuvier and Charles Lyell strongly disagreed about how the earth got to be the way it is today, they both rejected the idea of biological evolution.  However, neither man accepted a traditional biblical account of creation and a young earth.  Cuvier did not live long enough to learn about Charles Darwin’s proof of evolution, but Lyell did.  He came to accept this proof in the early 1860′s along with most leading scientists of that time.  Lyell also became a friend of Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s Early Ideas

Darwin proposed a few ideas before he came up with natural selection. One was called the Pangenetic hypothesis. It attempted to explain how acquired characteristics worked. This hypothesis proposed that cells produce small particles called pangenes or gemmules which end up in sex cells. When passed on to the offspring, the pangenes are able to exactly reproduce the organ in which they originated.

Another hypothesis by Darwin was the evolution of monads. This hypothesis stated that species adapt and old species are replaced by new ones, so the overall number of species remains the same. Monads arose by spontaneous generation and would evolve to become an ancestral species.

A modification of the monad hypothesis was that if a monad stopped producing new species it would die out.

Sources:

• Pre-Darwinian Theories
• Pre-Darwinian Theories of Evolution

Some Books:

• The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin
• Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
• Darwiniana – Essays by Thomas Huxley
• An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus
• The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinction by David Quammen

Websites:

• Timeline of Modern Evolutionary Thought
• A History of Evolutionary Thought
• The Victorian Web: Evolution
• The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online

Related posts

• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• Random Thoughts About Human Impact On Evolution (2)
• Religion is the Path of Least Resistance (2)
• Neece (1)
• More Groovy Science 2 (2)

Here’s some information from PBS:

After some three and a half billion years of life’s evolution on this planet – and after almost two million years since people recognizable as human first walked its surface – a new human burst upon the scene, apparently unannounced.

It was us.

Until then our ancestors had shared the planet with other human species. But soon there was only us, possessors of something that gave us unprecedented power over our environment and everything else alive. That something was – is – the Human Spark.

What is the nature of human uniqueness? Where did the Human Spark ignite, and when? And perhaps most tantalizingly, why?

In a three-part series broadcast on PBS in January 2010, Alan Alda takes these questions personally, visiting with dozens of scientists on three continents, and participating directly in many experiments – including the detailed examination of his own brain.

Program One: Becoming Us (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda confronts the puzzle of why our ancestors in Africa got the Spark and evolved into us, while the first humans to leave Africa for Europe–the Neanderthals–never did. Why did we flourish, while they changed very little for thousands of generations before eventually dying out?

Program Two: So Human, So Chimp (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda joins researchers studying human children and chimpanzees to discover why we share some skills with our closest living relatives, but have far surpassed them in our most uniquely human capabilities. Though we both descend from a common ancestor and are genetically so similar, why are we worlds apart in our behaviors and abilities?

Program Three: Brain Matters (link goes to full video)
Peer into Alan Alda’s head to find out which parts of our brain are responsible for our most human characteristics. Where do tool use and language reside? And how do our brains allow us to understand symbolism, figure out what others are thinking, and even travel in time? Are insight and imagination what really make humans unique?

Steve Mirsky interviews Alan Alda in two parts for Science Talk, the podcast for Scientific American. You can download or listen to them here. This is how I found out about the series and realized that Alan Alda isn’t just an actor. I had no idea he was into science so much.

Alan Alda’s Human Spark, Interview 1: Alan Alda, star of stage, screen and science, talks with podcast host Steve Mirsky about his new PBS science series The Human Spark as well as his strong interest in science and long association with Scientific American.

Interview Part 2: Alan Alda, host of the new PBS science series The Human Spark, talks to podcast host Steve Mirsky about his experiences as a fictional physican, a real patient and an amateur scientist.

Related posts

• Interesting, Enlightening Evolution (0)
• Liquid Glass Is Groovy! (1)
• Conversation With Anne About Religion, Truth, Science and History (4)
• By god, he’s a Bad Designer! (4)
• America Shouldn’t Be So Arrogant (6)

Well I am new to religion totally as neither of my parents knew what to believe so they taught me nothing. I have so many questions and not nearly enough hours to google! lol jk

If you dont believe in a higher being such as God like the Christians what do you believe? (***Now please dont think I am questioning your beliefs I simply need a better understanding of what you hold to be true in this world.***) Do you believe that things happen simply because we choose that is how it should or is there a force behind events? I have gathered you believe in evolution but how were monkeys first placed on earth? And then how was earth created? I believe it is truely unknown to begin with but do you have a theory?

My reply:

First, question everything. Don’t take my word for it. Research everything yourself.

I have a couple of questions for you.

Your parents taught you nothing about religion? So you picked up bits and pieces as you grew up from other people? That’s interesting. Are they atheists then? Or do they just never talk about religion? Perhaps it just doesn’t seem like an issue to them? I am curious if they’ve said anything to you at all. What kind of school did you go to? Did you go to public, private or home school? In which state? And how old are you?

Raising a child without teaching them anything is not what I’d consider ideal. My idea of a great foundation for a child is to teach her how to think critically, to think for herself. I recommend teaching a child about all religions from around the world and throughout human history, then asking questions to help the child form her own understanding about it. I would also share my personal opinion on the subject. But most people don’t raise their kids to think for themselves.

It sounds like you’re searching for something to believe in, but I would ask why you need to believe in anything that isn’t real?

I will speak for myself only, as I’m sure other atheists have come to their lack of belief in different ways.

I grew up as a christian. I went to church and believed jesus died for my sins. I was terrified of burning in hell and got baptized 3 times in 3 different churches to try to make sure I’d get into heaven and not burn for all eternity after I died. Looking back I think it was a horrible burden as a child, to be so afraid of a god that was supposed to be loving. It made no sense.

I studied the three major religions (judaism, christianity and islam) in my 20′s and realized after several years that is was all created by man. It hit me about 10 years ago that I no longer believed in gods of any sort and I was actually an atheist. A more detailed history of my deconversion can be found here.

Your question is incorrect. You asked if I no longer believe in a god (or any gods for that matter) then what do I believe in. The answer is I go out of my way to avoid beliefs as a general rule. You see, I don’t want to believe, I want to know (Carl Sagan said that). I want evidence and reality. I prefer facts to fantasy or wishful thinking. I have no need of beliefs that are not based in reality.

What do I hold to be true in this world? That’s a different question. I guess the answer to that is what has been observed in our brief human history. I value the accomplishments of humans, the amazing wonders of nature in all its forms, the cosmos in its vast scale. I look at history and see how far humans have come. I see how we’ve evolved our culture and societies, how we’ve learned great, amazing technologies and thought deep, profound concepts that have advanced us tremendously in a relatively short period of time. These are all real things that we can look at and examine and understand to the best of our abilities. Something else I hold true is that I am fully responsible for my own actions, as well as my inactions. I can’t pawn that off on some fantasy being. Actions and inactions have consequences.

Do I believe things happen simply because we choose that is how it should be or is there a force behind events? No. Neither of those has any basis in reality. The first is wishful thinking and the power of suggestion. The second is looking for a supernatural god to explain things you don’t understand. Neither is real.

Something happens because of cause and effect. I hit a key on my keyboard and a letter pops up on my monitor. A thousand things happened to make it show up. Just thinking and wishing for the words to appear on the screen does nothing. Your thoughts do not leave your head and transform the universe. This is a common false belief in the new age worldview. It is completely bogus nonsense without any basis in fact. If you have a thought and then you take that thought and turn it into some kind of action, that’s when things start happening.

In all of science there is zero evidence of anything supernatural in the universe. Everything that has been explained is natural. While we don’t have all the answers (and probably never will) about the beginning of the universe as we know it, or how it will end, if it will, and other questions, we know an awful lot now and it’s all completely natural. There is no evidence of any sort of god needed to make it all work as it does. What we call the laws of nature work just fine without any kind of divine force.

So I guess what I trust is cause and effect, physics, and human interaction with the material world. No need for a god or a creator. It all works just fine on its own.

Yes, I accept evolution as a fact, as most scientists do. Your next statement is also quite wrong. Monkeys were never placed on earth. This would say that some divine being put monkeys on the planet like a child placing dolls in a toy house. Did you learn the prevailing theories of how the earth was formed through natural cosmic events 4.6 billion years ago (or thereabouts) in school?

To go back in time, and again this is my rough explanation (you really need to read up on the specifics as I am not a cosmologist or a geologist and I’m doing this from memory) about 14 billion years ago (roughly) there was the Big Bang. All of matter expanded from a singular source (called a singularity) outwards, and even now it continues to expand. Swirling gases condensed to form stars and crashed together and cooled to form planets. I guess you could say, after the Big Bang, the rest of the formation of stars and planets has been the effect of that event.
I recommend Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson as a great astrophysicist. He’s easy to understand and very interesting. Here’s a 5 minute video you might like.

Also, PBS has a timeline of the universe here.

These are rough and simple explanations of prevailing theories as I know them. As I’ve mentioned, no one knows how exactly the Big Bang happened, what the universe was before the Big Bang, or how exactly life on earth first formed. The thing about science is we never stop asking questions. Usually asking a question brings up a dozen more that are unanswered, but it’s all so exciting and thrilling to observe the universe in all its intricate and natural majesty, and to try to understand it. And again, there is no evidence of any sort of god or supernatural being. Everything so far discovered and understood is all natural.

While no one knows exactly how life first started on earth billions of years ago, we are coming up with interesting ideas for how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) were first able to form in the primordial soup that was on the planet. It was a very different environment, and little one-celled organisms most likely formed bio-films on the ocean floor and probably in volcanic steam vents. (Again, this is my understanding. I am getting this from memory, not a science text, but I recommend you study it yourself so that you know a bit about it straight from different scientists)

Through natural selection and adaptation, the little bacteria evolved over billions of years, branching off, adapting to different environments and through different environmental pressures. We are not evolved from monkeys. But we share a common ancestor from long ago. In fact, I should make it clear, we now know that all of life is connected genetically. You have billions of bacteria living on you right now, and you share a common ancestor with that bacteria, your pet cat, the fish you ate for dinner, and the whales that live in the ocean. I recommend watching a great video and playing with an interactive tree of life here. Here is a link to the video with David Attenborough. It’s 6 and a half minutes long, basically just a rough overview but it will get you started. Here is another great tree of life video (10 minutes).

I hope that makes sense. Please consider looking into learning a basic understanding of biology and maybe some other science. It will help you understand so much more about the world. Get some good books on evolutionary biology, cosmology and astronomy. You might find it amazing and interesting. Look up the show Cosmos and Carl Sagan. He was so awesome at explaining the universe.

Look up David Attenborough. He’s a naturalist and explains natural history quite well. Try a museum of natural history. You could check out the NY Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian in D.C., and look to your local library in the science section. Look for scientists who are peer reviewed and stick to subjects they are experts in. Follow up with other sources to verify what you read. Never take anything at face value.

I have to ask, why do you feel you have a need for a god and a religion? You were lucky not to be brainwashed into believing something false to control you. Why do you feel the need to grasp onto one now? Religion is about controlling how people think, feel and live through fear, guilt and promise of a reward after death, which can never be tested or proven.

Oh, and because it is often a reason people think they need religion, I will say that being a good person is its own reward and there is ample evidence that morals are evolutionary, not directed by a supreme being who likes the smell of burning goat-flesh. Millions of atheists are moral and happy without such delusional beliefs based on iron age goat-herders.

I hope I answered your questions. I hope you are now asking many more and that those questions will become a lifelong quest for information and knowledge about the world and the universe, and our humble place within it.

~

If you would like to add to what I have said, I would love links to great videos, sites or books that might be helpful in explaining the Tree of Life, evolution and the Big Bang, etc. Please don’t resort to ad hominem attacks. We all start somewhere. Let’s give Anne the benefit of the doubt and encourage her to ask questions and seek answers.

Related posts

• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Let’s Stop Pussyfooting Around (46)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)

Most of us (skeptics, non-believers, etc) know there is no historical, archeological, or other scientific evidence for the Israelites residing in and exodus from Egypt. But if we suspend our skepticism for a moment, could there be some scientific explanation for some of the supernatural events?

Ten plagues. Ten scientific explanations.

In 1400 B.C., a group of nervous Egyptians saw the Nile turn red. But what they thought was blood was actually an algae bloom which killed the fish, which prior to that had been living off the eggs of frogs. Those uneaten eggs turned into record numbers of baby frogs who subsequently fled to the land and died. Their little rotting frog bodies attracted lice and flies. The lice carried the bluetongue virus, which killed 70% of Egypt’s livestock. The flies carried glanders, a bacterial infection which in humans causes boils. Soon afterwards, the Nile River Valley was hit with a three-day sandstorm otherwise known as the plague of darkness. During the sandstorm, intense heat can combine with an approaching cold front to create not only hail, but also electrical storms which would have looked to the ancient Egyptians like fire from the sky. The subsequent wind would have blown the Ethiopian locust population off course and right into downtown Cairo. Hail is wet, locusts leave droppings, spread both on your grain, and you have got mycrotoxins. Dinnertime in ancient Egypt meant the first-born child got the biggest portion which in this case meant he ate the most toxins, so he died. Ten plagues. Ten scientific explanations.

For a more dramatic delivery, here’s the audio version:

This is an excerpt from The Reaping starring Hilary Swank. Although Hollywood is giving us a dramatic delivery, and simplifying it, they are just spouting pseudoscience.

Okay you can resume your skepticism again. There is still no historical, archeological, or other scientific evidence for the plagues, but at least there is a plausible scientific explanation for supernatural events.

Related posts

• The Greatest Destruction of Knowledge (2)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Religion is the Path of Least Resistance (2)
• FREE Scanning Electron Micrographs of Just About Anything (5)
• Evolution Before Darwin (0)

I know some of you are quite knowledgeable on this subject. Anything you’d like to share with us along your way would be greatly appreciated, too. We love to learn here at HDC.

Here’s the deal:

Announcing the 2010 Mythicist Prize

The Mythicists’ Forum, a consortium of New Testament scholars, together with American Atheists, Inc., have the pleasure to announce the 2010 Mythicist Prize.

THE PRIZE

The sum of $1,000 (U.S.) will be awarded to the author of a submitted essay which, in the opinion of the judges, sheds light on the origins of Christianity and, at the same time, supports the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.

ELIGIBILITY

Anyone is eligible to submit an essay. The prizewinning contribution will be published in 2010, along with submissions of distinction which merit an Honorable Mention. The publisher will be announced at the time of the award.

SUBMISSION

Contestants are limited to one essay each. Three copies of the work should be mailed in one package to: 2010 Mythicist Prize 396 E. 29th Ave., & Eugene, OR 97405 U.S.A.

DEADLINES FOR RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS

From the U.S.A.: Dec. 1, 2009. & From other countries: Dec. 15, 2009.

LANGUAGE OF SUBMISSION

Essays must be written in one of the following languages: English, German, French, Italian, Spanish.

JUDGES:

René Salm, Robert M. Price, Frank R. Zindler, Earl Doherty. The decision of the judges is final. The prizewinner will be announced at the 2010 American Atheist National Convention. (Note: If no submission is deemed worthy of receiving the Mythicist Prize, then the prize will not be awarded.)

FORMAT

Essays must be 30–100 pages in length and double-spaced. Submissions should preferably be printed (or typed) on both sides of the paper. Footnotes or endnotes are permissible and a bibliography is required. Pages are to be numbered, with the author’s name and the title of the essay on each page. Also, the author’s name, address, as well as e-mail address should appear on the first or cover page. Submissions via email and digital files on computer disk are not permitted, but contributors should be prepared to supply a digital copy of their essay if requested.

For further information, please write to “2010 Mythicist Prize” at the address above, or email Mr. René Salm at rjs@epud.net. ”

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/mythicist_prize.html

http://www.atheists.org/Mythicist_Prize

Mythicists’ Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythicists_forum/

the VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icvpY6cAZzg

Related posts

• Neece (1)
• Let’s Stop Pussyfooting Around (46)
• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)
• Conversations With christians – Beth 3 – Where Do We Go From Here? EDIT (16)
• Conversation With Anne About Religion, Truth, Science and History (4)

I got another email from Beth! We are still on the topic of cherry-picking, but deal with a few more issues. Here you go, my friends. Your comments are always welcome.

EDIT: Johnny and GMNightmare commented below and I agreed completely with what they said. So I sent her another email a minute ago with that information as an addendum. Since I felt it was important and also sent it to Beth, I wanted to add it to the post, because it all fits right in. Thanks, guys, you’re so awesome!

This “cherry picking” issue is really starting to bug me, honestly. I always viewed cherry picking as using only certain parts of things instead of incorporating the whole for your own convinence. If that is the case, I can assure you I am not. It would only be such if I were to view the Bible as entirely true and without flaws, which I do not. If I were honestly picking and choosing for my benefit then I would be saying all of it was authentic, but then excluding parts of it that redefined the selected part. For example, saying that Jesus was a real man who lived and taught as described in the New Testament does not change anything in the Old Testament. Jesus never stated that the Old Testament laws were the laws of the God he was referring to. I do not mean to sound rude, but I study the Bible very often and it baffles me where you heard such a thing. He does speak of Moses, however that is about the only specific reference that points to the earlier books. He also reads from Isiah, but that does not deal with the law of God, it is mainly about his nature.

Cherry-Pick: Verb: to choose the best items from a selection for oneself, often in an unfair manner.

And what part of selecting choice bits of the bible that you see fit to use, and discarding the rest is not cherry-picking? It’s the very definition thereof. But no amount of definitions, or explanations or logic can budge you from your worldview, so let’s move on. It doesn’t matter why you choose choice bits and throw the rest out, the fact is that you do, at your personal discretion.

Jesus refers to the law of the old testament and the prophets:
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
~ Jesus says he approves of the old testament laws and the prophets. He has no objection to the cruelties of the old testament, and he says those laws are binding on everyone forever.

The Bible in itself is nothing more then a bunch of documents gathered and put together to make sense. Therefore, to say I disregard them all in favor of just a few is rather silly. Examining each as individuals is how I operate. Also, there is the chance certain books were removed due to the people who edited it. It is not beneath human beings to take out what they don’t like or only put in what they do, regardless if it would significantly change anything.

Well, I don’t know about making sense. That is your opinion, certainly not mine. But I digress. I never said you disregard them all, you just disregard whatever doesn’t go along with your already predetermined idea of what is “true” and “right” to you. And yes, it is true that books were removed and added to the original codex, and that it was edited over time to become what it is today. All the more reason to disregard it as a holy book, since it most assuredly was written by men. But you agree with me there, so we don’t need to go there.

May I suggest studying The Codex Sinaiticus which is the oldest bible known to exist, and which is now available online?

My rewording of what GMN said below: This is a very interesting point. If you can determine, without being a biblical scholar with a degree in such things, what is authentic in the bible and what is not, why do you even need the bible? You’re basically saying you know more than whoever put the bible together. You’re saying that you know the “mind of god”, and what he intends and what he feels and thinks. You don’t need the bible at all.

Now to return to the mystery of Jesus issue. I will be truthful. I am still studying this subject. It seems a new challenge to his existence is presented every year and so in follows a rebuttle to the claim. As far as plagarism goes, I believe it really should be a dead argument. It has already been disproven. I did read your article and many others similar to it. Jesus was not a mythological figure that was a compilation of other ones. Most accusations are exaggerated or aren’t even dated correctly. It is never said in the Bible that Jesus was born Decemeber 25th or that he had 3 wise men attend his birth. However, considering you seem firm in the fact that he never lived I will do my best to address any problems you have with him being real. Although I do have a question, not intended to support my own side, but out of genuine curiousity: why would a history book claim Jesus lived if it is clear (from your perspective) that he hasn’t? I bring this up because I remember in the 10th grade reading from my textbook and Jesus being mentionned as if he truly was a person who walked this earth. The same as any president or dictator. Once again, just wondering.

Who has disproven what? Read the myths from the surrounding areas around the time that jesus supposedly lived and died, and a hundred years after. The early christians were definitely borrowing from the Hellenistic and Egyptian myths, Mithras, etc. Who told you that jesus was a real person? No one knows that. There is no evidence of his existence anywhere.

No, the early christians decided jesus was born on December 25th to help convert pagans to their faith, since they were already celebrating the Winter Solstice on that date. It was a way to increase their numbers by incorporating other traditions and myths into their stories, to get them to convert. It’s all myth. That’s what I’m saying. What about jesus is based in fact? Where is it corroborated anywhere outside of the bible?

Did you go to a religious school? Because talking about religion in a public school is against the separation of church and state. And simply because one person was thoughtless enough to take the bible as fact and put Jesus into a school textbook like any other person does not make him real. It just means whoever wrote that into the book blindly believed as you do. Lots of people believing a lie or a myth doesn’t make it true. And reading something in a book, even a history book, doesn’t make things necessarily true either. Information in history needs to be corroborated. Facts need to be checked and verified from different sources. Just like science needs to be peer reviewed.

I do find it interesting that you’d say jesus was mentioned as true just like any president or dictator. That’s kind of funny. But the difference is that there is lots of evidence from multiple sources about dictators and presidents. That’s how we know what we know. But even then, we must always keep in mind, history is written by the winners.

Johnny adds: Mithra was one of the main deities worshiped in the same location, and just prior to Jesus. His birthday was December 25th on the Gregorian calendar; or at the time of the winter solstice (as were several other gods). The winter solstice was often celebrated as a birth or rebirth of the sun by many cultures, since it is the shortest day of the year and afterward the days start to get longer. In about 350AD, Pope Julius I declared December 25th as Christ’s birthday in attempt to help smooth the acceptance of Christianity by cultures practicing other religions.

Matthew – [2:1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, [2:2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. … … [2:11] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

If not the birth itself, they were there shortly after according to the Bible.

Johnny adds, regarding the history book claim: There were a couple historians who included reference to Jesus in historical documentation. They were proven to be fraudulent additions made after-the-fact. Unfortunately they are still cited though. Some history books continue to include Jesus as a historical figure (with no religious intent); but have received poor feedback for doing so.

Now there are some documents that provide hints and innuendos; and this is why even atheist scholars speculate that an “apocalyptic prophet in the Danielic apocalyptic tradition” name Yeshua probably did exist. Even some (of the intelligent) theist scholars concede that his deeds are most likely a compilation of multiple apocalyptic prophets. BUT there is no solid reliable evidence that he existed.

I think I covered everything. Oh, by the way, I checked the New Testament again. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being a sin. Also, he never specifically says the laws in the Old Testament are the ones he is talking about. If so, he would reitterate that gays are going to be punished for their lifestyle and he never does. He would also say eating shellfish is wrong, haha.

No, jesus never said anything about homosexuality or shellfish. But he did say he upheld the law (see above: Matthew 5:17-18). So why would he need to reiterate every law from the old testament? He simply had to say the law was fine the way it was, and to say everyone was to follow that law until the end of time. It’s very clear.

What do you think about the resurrected Jesus telling his disciples that he would be back before they died? And that they were to go forth and perform miracles and cures just like he did?

Johnny adds a very valid point I should have mentioned: Something so few Christians don’t seem to contemplate about Jesus (if he existed): Jesus was NOT a Christian! He was Jew!! Whether he was a rabbi, a prophet, or both; most scholars agree that (if he existed) he was probably well versed in the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament). So as Neece mentions (Matthew 5:17-18), when he says none of the laws shall be destroyed, there is no reason to doubt he is talking about all the laws of the Tanakh.

~

Ok… so that’s the newest exchange. My comments were sent to Beth at the same time I posted this, so she hasn’t had a chance to respond yet. Hopefully we’ll be done with the cherry-picking issue soon. That poor dead horse has been beaten down to nothing!

Related posts

• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)
• Conversations With Ash: 1 – Answering Questions (9)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Conversations With Craig The Christian 2 – Biblical Interpretations and A Logical Fallacy (11)
• Cherry-Picking and A bible Lesson For Atheists (11)