WTMA commentary broadcast 7/31/08:
- Jack Hunter
Columnist
The "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter is a conservative commentator (WTMA 1250 AM talk radio) and columnist (Charleston City Paper) living in Charleston, South Carolina.
City Paper Blogs
The News blog has moved hereThe Arts blog has moved hereThe Calendar blog has moved hereThe Music blog has moved hereby Jack Hunterby columnist Will MoredockLocal fashion deals and tipsOur new flirt/rant boardfrom writer David Lee Nelsonby Greg HambrickClassical music reviews from Lindsay KoobVideos, photos and shows from web editor Joshua Curry-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- charles vlodek on The Hypocrisy of the NAACP
- charles vlodek on The Hypocrisy of the NAACP
- eber hart on Pat Buchanan on the Financial Crisis
- HGA on SA Radio – Pride in Prejudice
- paul mcclaren on A note about southernavenger.com
21 Comments
I fail to see a correlation between creationism and diversity as equal in their “religious” nature. Creationism is just another pseudo-science cooked up by the Religious Right, along with intelligent design, ex-gay ministries, and phony archaeology digs purportedly proving the existence of Noah’s ark, the parting of the Red Sea, etc. All of these so-called “sciences” have been discredited and disproven by true professional scientists and researchers.
Evolution is not a controversial theory to professional researchers—it is a fact. It is because of evolutionary theory that we have made so many strides in scientific medicine. You can thank Charles Darwin the next time you have to go to the hospital to get special meds for bacteria that “evolved” into penicillin-resistant strains. Science is no more a religion than the reverse for the simple reason that there is no “faith” involved in scientific facts. Scientific fact remains scientific fact whether you “believe” in it or not.
And if diversity is such a crock, how come America’s major corporations, like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, have initiated partnerships with groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to help educate corporate America on the benefits of workplace diversity? I doubt either of these companies would go out on such a limb purely in the spirit of social experimentation. If they promote social diversity in the workplace, it is damned well because it is to their advantage to do so.
And for someone who lives in the rural South, what do you care what the cosmopolitan liberal elites think anyhow? You are from a totally separate world. Like oil and water, the two of you will never mix, either geographically or ideologically. You are well-rooted in your culture and heritage; they are not.
One thing I do heartily agree with you on; the real lack of, and real need for, humility in our selfish, self-centered, materialistic society. The dissemination of this spiritual principle was originally the responsibility of the church. And the church would still be strong and vital today if the Religious Right hadn’t gotten political and made every effort to tear down the wall of separation between religion and government.
Religion at its best teaches us how to find true happiness: through selfless service to others and by doing right by others on a daily basis. In fact, were it not for its dogmatic, unwavering prejudice against gay people, I would probably be a devout follower of Christianity today.
If religion can just stick to what it does best, which is to inspire moral behavior in society, and leave science to the scientists, it can regain its moral highground and good standing within American society again.
Albert Einstein stated it well: “It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science.”
Brad,
The point was not that there is a “religious” correlation between Creationism and Diversity… what Jack was pointing out was the hypocrisy of those who praise diversity yet are prejudiced against people who do not subscribe to their own beliefs (ie- those who look down on Creationists).
Let me preface by saying that I have a degree in Biology, and I believe in evolution. I also believe that God created the world (although maybe not exactly as described in Genesis). I DO NOT believe that we came from apes. Common ancestry is completely different than evolution. Charles Darwin doesn’t even mention mankind in the Origin of Species. He describes natural selection in the animal kingdom (as observed on the Galapagos Islands). Now that we have the terms correctly defined and the “facts” straight, let me take you to task on your other claims. Biology 101 says, that in order to disprove something (science never proves anything) that among other things you must be able to observe something, test it, and reproduce the results. We cannot do any of those things in relation to the formation of our universe. The top scientists today can only hypothesize about what happened based on highly controversial (and fallible) carbon-14 dating and other dating methods. They cannot know how the earth was formed with any certainty because they simply did not observe it. You show your bias and ignorance (not to mention, your arrogance) when you claim your belief as “scientific fact.”
You also go on to defend corporate diversity in one paragraph (citing Wal-Mart and McDonalds) and then you prove Jack’s point about forced diversity in the very next paragraph (arguing that the Southerner and the cosmopolitan liberal will never be able to mix)!!!
You come across as dogmatic in your contrarian argument, yet your self-contradiction and your misunderstanding of simple scientific terms goes to show why forced diversity (be it in beliefs or race) in a work place or a community can cause more stress than unity.
Diversity is neither all good nor all bad. While I agree that ethnic diversity does often cause friction, it has also caused progress. There was a time in this country when we used to hang black Americans by the hooped end of ropes, solely for the “crime” of being black. Yet today, we have a black man running for high office in this country.
Diversity of thought leads to progress as well, both philosophical and technological. Whereas science has progressed phenomenally over say, the last 500 years, religion really has not. Human lifespans are longer and our lives are abundantly easier because of the contributions of science. But contributions to humankind can religion boast? Mostly just wars, death, mayhem and chaos. Comparing and contrasting religion and science is like comparing and contrasting Pentium 4 PC to an abacus.
Jack,
I’m a conservative, and I’m also an atheist. I believe that diversity for the sake of diversity is perversity; to the contrary, every individual should be assessed on the merits, skills, and abilities he creates for himself.
You can attack the liberals all you want about thier calls for diversity while being hypocritical at the same time. But you can’t pin me down.
The downfall of conservatism will be based on matters of faith. It is faith by extension of thier clutch on religion that dooms them. If faith didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have so blindingly trusted President Bush and his foreign policy. We would have said, “show me the wmds”. But it is the often the indoctrination of faith at a young age that people forgo the process of rigorous intellectual thought. This, you’ll find, is why many conservatives and neoconservatives alike still believe Bush can do no wrong. Sean Hannity is a perfect example of this. His tag line should be, “Not the facts ma’am, I have faith”.
Similarly, you have liberals putting faith in the ultra-flawed studies of climate change, having faith that Al Gore and his environmental henchmen are correct, and that a return to the dark age is necessary.
Interesting. It is because of faith that puts us at the brink of extinction. Both sides are guilty of this.
And this should tell you one thing: The undertones of all that is wrong with this world today, against all that is just and right, is a battle between reasong and faith (religious, or otherwise).
I believed several years ago that, quoting Reagan, it would be up with freedom and down to the anthill of tyranny based on the differences between conservative and liberal conflicts of ideology.
But I’ve come to the conclusion that was wrong. It is not about left versus right, it is about up and down with complete indifference to whether it involves liberal or conservative ideology. And the root of this, I’ve come to find, which both distinguishes good from bad and up from down, are on the terms of faith versus reason.
And on the topic of marginalized the opinions and rhetoric of “racists” as “inconsequential”, there are limits to that argument as well. Hate speech has been known to give way to wars, genocides, and ethnic cleansings. When the “opinions” of racists are allowed to go unchecked, history shows that the results can be catastrophic. Potter’s graves, concentration camps, and gulags. A racist’s comments are like a cancerous cyst, which left to fester long enough, can result in the demise of an otherwise healthy body of humanity.
Cory,
An undergrad degree in biology hardly qualifies you as a professional scientific researcher. Many of the Religious Right’s pseudo-scientists have similar degrees. And you show your own ignorance by stating that science doesn’t prove anything. The next time you suffer a severe physical trauma, why not just pray for healing instead of going to the hospital where all the trained medical staff are just guessing about the right course of action to take in fixing the problem?
And carbon-14 dating is only fallible and controversial to people like yourself whose religious beliefs prevent them from accepting scientific truth. Again, this dating method is not controversial to professional scientific researchers. What is your alternative? A world created in six days?
And you failed to address my point: if diversity in the workplace is such a crock, why are Wal-Mart and McDonald’s going to such lengths to promote it in the workplace? And my reference to Southerners and cosomopolitan liberals had nothing to do with workplace diversity.
I don’t feel I have made any self-contradictions, and it is you who misunderstand scientific truths, not me or anybody else who has truly devoted their lives to its cause.
“”And on the topic of marginalized the opinions and rhetoric of “racists” as “inconsequential”, there are limits to that argument as well. Hate speech has been known to give way to wars, genocides, and ethnic cleansings. When the “opinions” of racists are allowed to go unchecked, history shows that the results can be catastrophic. Potter’s graves, concentration camps, and gulags. A racist’s comments are like a cancerous cyst, which left to fester long enough, can result in the demise of an otherwise healthy body of humanity.”"
I agree 100%. That is why we need to get rid of LaRaza, MEChA, The NAACP and any other of the hundreds of race based oreganizations. These racist pricks and groups with focus on nothing but race need to go along with thier racist attitudes. With all these racist gone then maybe we can move forward?
Brad,
If you look through my last post again you will see that at no point did I claim to be a “professional scientific researcher.” Again, you blur the facts in your zealous attempts to find self worth in arguing on subject matter that you have zero experience in. When I said that science sets out to disprove, not prove, I was referring to the testability of a hypothesis (not a medical prognosis- which is arrived at through the process of elimination). Science deals with the refutable, if something cannot be tested or observed (or therefore refuted) then it is outside the realm of science. Carbon 14 dating is 99.6% accurate for up to 60,000 years, after that the accuracy plummets. Our earth may very well be millions of years old, but Carbon 14 dating will not help in estimating that accurately.
As for Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, they are market leaders due to the processes and systems that they have in place… NOT their employee hiring practices (I think that anyone trying to get customer service from either can attest to this). It is estimated that the employee turnover ratio for both is between 85-100%. Does that bode well for workplace diversity?
Diagnosis*
Cory
Enlighten me as to your “experience” concerning your beliefs that man did not descent from apes, despite vast reams of scientific research confirming this. Tell me about your oh-so-learned alternative scientific hypothesis to the contrary. Tell me about the testability of your hypothesis. Like most Christian pseudo-science advocates, you start out with the belief first, and then try to make the facts fit in as best you can, instead of the reverse. Keep your religion out of our classrooms, and we’ll keep our skepticism out of your church.
Brad,
Your last response was dripping with sarcasm, so I can tell that you do not have a rational mindset entering this debate.
My hypothesis is simply this: Due to well known physical phenomenon (such as the Red-Shift) most people can reasonably assert that the universe was created in a large explosion. We will never know what caused that explosion of matter because no one witnessed it. There is no scientific method to replicate and test what happened. Since it cannot be reproduced, no REASONABLE hypothesis can be refuted… therefore it is outside of the realm of science to achieve any sort of certainty. Anything else is PURELY speculation. Get over it, no one will ever be able to disprove either of the generally accepted scenarios. I just think that a reasonably intelligent thinker would believe that design implies a designer, but I do not push my personal beliefs on anyone. You sound like a deeply damaged person, with threats about keeping my religion out of your schools. I am not religious, nor do I have any religious affiliation… you assumed that because I mentioned God I MUST be religious. I understand that you are viewing OUR world through your own collection of life experiences (however unfortunate they may be), but do not be so quick to label someone… you will end up looking foolish.
I don’t think I’ve mislabled you in the slightest. And I wasn’t referring to creationism in my last post. I was referring to your assertion that man did not descend from apes. What other explanation can you give for your belief that man is not a part of the natural history of our planet other than that he is of some supernatural (religious) origin? I’m sorry, but I really do feel I have you pegged.
I DO believe that man is part of the natural history of our planet. We disagree on the natural history of this planet however, which is why I referenced the fundamental problem with trying to scientifically “prove” the origin of the universe. There are certain theories that are mutually exclusive for the origin of man and the universe. There is a certain amount of faith in the supernatural required to accept any of our theories today. Any theory outside of the Steady State theory (which is not even accepted today) violates the first law of thermodynamics as well as the law of conservation of energy. So there is NO way around the fact that you have to accept a certain level of supernatural intervention if you are going seek out the origins of life. Otherwise, there is no explanation for the addition of energy into our universe to cause the Big Bang.
I simply submit that there is no evidence for common ancestry in the fossil record. There are transitional fossils, but they do not account for a jump from one species to another. I believe that punctuated equilibrium occurs, but not to transform one species into another- there is no record of that. Just because our physical form is similar to that of apes, does not imply that we are ancestors. Our physical form is not what makes us human, there is more to us than that. There will never be a fossil that allows us to observe higher thinking- fossils only allow us to observe physical form. The ability to use reason, to show compassion, to think critically remains isolated in the human species. There is no fossil evidence to support that a lower species mutated into a compassionate and rational philosopher. It is just not possible to prove that, so why take on that burden of proof required in order to claim that science can show beyond a reasonable doubt that this transformation occurred?
Fair enough, Cory. You are knowledgeable and well-spoken, and present an intelligent argument. I admire that. If I have made mistaken assumptions about your beliefs, I apologize.
I agree with you that we humans are more than just the sum of our parts. I believe that we all have a spark of the divine within us. What that spark is, how it got there, and why it’s there are all questions I don’t pretend to have the answers to.
You’ve shown me that not all people who advocate creationism are religious nuts. Thank you for showing me this.
Regards,
Brad
No apology necessary, we all hear the same tired argument to advance man-made religious dogma all too often. I think that I find myself frustrated in the middle because I find a few redeeming qualities in each argument, but my belief system does not fit into the neat little box.
I always appreciate an informed debate. It is a rare occasion that I encounter someone with a different opinion that is able to step outside of their belief system in order to appreciate another point of view. I admire that.
All the Best,
Cory
“I just think that a reasonably intelligent thinker would believe that design implies a designer, but I do not push my personal beliefs on anyone.”
While you may not push your beliefs onto others, this is not the position of the world’s major churches and religions. They push theirs onto everyone they can. Fairy tales like a talking serpent, a woman being created from a man’s rib, Noah’s ark, Jonah living in the belly of a great fish, a burning bush that talks, turning water into wine and feeding masses with a few fish and loaves of bread, raising the dead, casting out demons from the mentally deranged, etc. etc.
Whether the universe was created by a creator is certainly a matter of philosophical debate, but it is not science. There is no empirical evidence that there is a God. Science deals in facts and laboratory verifiable evidence; religion deals in faith and purports itself using fear of the unknown. Science gives us technologies and things to make our lives easier. Religion gives us a way to shirk responsibility for those things that we believe we have no control over, and to place them into the hands of “God”.
And even if a “creator” made the universe, it is equally plausible that it was Zeus, Rah, or any number of the deities fabricated by man over millenniums as it could have been any Judeo-Christian version of “God”.
Or possibly it was a great spaghetti monster that made all this stuff. Or aliens from another dimension. I am just as likely to believe they did it as I am any other absentee “God”.
I’m sorry, but I had to make the following observation.
It was very encouraging to read this collection of comments. “Cory” is incredibly smart, insightful, and objective. “Brad Bailey” conceding and apologizing for “mistaken assumptions” in a little debate of sorts (which is very rare). And good points from others– including a brilliant comment (comment #4.) from “j.d”.
Pete,
Please forgive me for not proof-reading my posts on a blog, when I mistakenly used the word “proves” a few times rather than “suggests”. I was posting during work hours and therefore was trying to get my point across without being too verbose- refer to your post for an example of
why this practice should be avoided in the “comment section” of a blog.
I never once misstated science, I disagree with “thousands of scientists” as you generically stated.
The only time that you state any facts in your entire post is when you try to argue with the point that I made in passing about Darwin’s book not mentioning mankind. Most of the flaws in my post that you point out are merely open to debate due to my desire for brevity. A typical example of your astute argument is the following quote “This evidence is good enough for thousands of scientists who work in the field. This does not make them right and you wrong, but inasmuch as you have no evidence to refute their theory” Come on Pete, you are better than that, this is so vague. I find it hard to defend myself against such hard hitting sources that you cite, such as: “thousands of scientists”
The fact that you said this “But fossils can give us a good idea of the quality of the brain the animal had, and therefore the potential for how well it could use its brain.” Shows that you will probably not see the fundamental philosophical challenge my argument presents to science. And no, fossils do not show us the quality of the brain, merely the size (which we know is NOT an interpretable indices of intelligence).
Pete,
Go back through my posts, you misquote and misunderstand me, as well as my argument. So I will make one last attempt to help you understand what it was exactly that I was arguing. My original point was similar to what Jack pointed out- the hypocrisy and narrow minds of people. Go back and re-read my posts without lumping me into your comfortable stereotype of a mainstream creationist, I am not. I also never once disputed evolution (in relation to humans or any other creature). I disputed common ancestry between apes and humans. READ WHAT I WROTE BEFORE YOU MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF AGAIN. I do not think that you are not intelligent, I think that you have a poor grasp of what you read, you have proved this by so grossly misunderstanding the original discussion.
Vague, yes. All of your points made, lack any sort of specificity. Which is especially dangerous since THE ONLY mainstream principle that I do not accept is a common ancestor of apes and humans, yet you seem to find a point of contention due to your lack of reading comprehension on almost every modern day scientific principle. I am not arguing against those! Are our dating methods fallible? Absolutely, but they are our best guess at this point. Stop latching on to the peripheral of this discussion… you get distracted so far from the main point that you start arguing about how many scientists believe in evolution. I DO TOO! You argue like a hyperactive child.
You have said that I have no idea what I am talking about, and referred me to physicists twice now regarding thermodynamics and the conservation of energy… but you have not said why (what I said about energy being introduced into the system does not violate any part of the Big bang Theory- which I believe is very plausible). My assertion that energy in some form must have been introduced to the original mass of matter that is now our universe is not my own… it is quite common. How else do you explain an explosion? If all matter in our universe was concentrated at one point, what caused the explosion? Heat? That is matter. Where did it come from! These are questions that science cannot answer.
Not that it is any of your business, but I have B.A. in Biology with a minor in Chemistry. My degree plan concentrated on vertebrate histology and biochemistry. I received that degree from a Big 12 University.
Go back and re-read all of my posts with Ritalin in your system and with your big boy pants on.
Perhaps you should learn to express yourself better. For starters, and this is just a suggestion, if you don’t want people to think you’re religious, or a “mainstream” creationist (whatever that means), don’t tell people that you believe God created the universe without explaining.
If you believe that man evolved from a “lower” form, don’t say that “[t]here is no fossil evidence to support that a lower species mutated into a compassionate and rational philosopher.” Evolution is based on common ancestry. The thought that multiple lines of evolution without common ancestry would use the same DNA is absurd. The simplest solution is that we all evolved from a common ancestor. I’m sorry if that upsets you, although I don’t really understand why.
You were able to clearly communicate, and I never disputed this, that you disbelieve that man and apes have a common ancestor. I just pointed out that many vague thousands of vague scientists don’t agree with you, and that based on the reasonable assumption that they know more than you do, I’m siding with them. The number of scientists who accept a theory, particularly if they understand it, is important. If half were on one side and half the other, then we’d have a controversy. We don’t. Very few biologists dispute evolution, though the exact mechanisms are a subject for debate…among scientists, because they know what they’re talking about.
If you don’t want people to think you’re a creationist, it would probably be best if you didn’t refer to radiometric dating as fallible, controversial and a guess. Creationists do that, and you insist you’re not one. Or even religious. Try saying, instead, that it’s imperfect. Stress the 99.6% figure you used earlier.
Science doesn’t know what triggered the Big Bang. There is no consensus that it was, or even could have been, triggered by an influx of energy from “outside,” even if you insist that it’s a “common” idea. I don’t know what you mean by “common” or why you think it’s important; Bigfoot, Atlantis and alien abductions are also “common” ideas. So what?
“These are questions science cannot answer.” Good thing you told me you’re not religious or a creationist, because I wouldn’t be able to figure it out from what you’re writing. Perhaps you simply forgot that, in the past, there were many, many more things that science couldn’t answer but now can, and so you forgot the last word to that sentence: “…yet.” Written correctly, “”These are questions science cannot answer…yet.” See how much more accurate that is? Glad I could help.
No one asked you about your degree; you were so eager to show us how much you knew you threw it out there. And once you did, asking for clarification is perfectly appropriate. I didn’t ask your name or the year you got it, or even make the cheap shot that it was probably from a Christian school, now did I?
So, Cory, I’m going to have to say that the evidence shows you to be a creationist trying desperately, and quite futilely, to present himself as someone who’s looked at all the evidence and, from the heights of his amazing degree in biology, declared that all those dumb old scientists are wrong. (You are aware that evolutionary biologists also have degrees in biology, right? And that they work in the field? Just checking.)
And, no, I don’t think you’re stupid either, but you are disgusting. The phrase I frequently read referring to others like you is “Liars for Jesus”, although it isn’t necessarily limited to Christians, just religious fanatics who distort science to achieve their own ends.
Another long entry. See how long it takes to refute lies? You’re a typical creationist: lie, then when your lies are refuted, you lie again, insisting the other person never addressed your lies, then you tell the same lies.
But you know what? I’m going to do you a favor. I’m leaving. I was never really talking to you, I was talking to anyone who might come here and read your nonsense, thinking it was gospel (pun intended, of course). The smart ones, the ones who have a chance of seeing what’s true and what’s – well, your posts – have by now figured it out, so I would be a fool if I responded to you again. Anyway, you have nothing new to say, and certainly nothing useful.
Bye-bye, Bubba. Start your rant about how I was vague, and didn’t understand the subtle philosophical points you were trying to make. I won’t be here to read it, but you can feel you won. I like to leave my readers happy.
PS – If you’re smart, you won’t respond at all, so everyone will think you never read this.
my dad stopped on this station,now i know why i got seris radio.what a idoit!!!!!!!!!! i’m damn,glad i’m from the north.