Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Sound Off 02-19-09

The Disevangelists have made a quiz. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and take your best shot. There are 10 "challenges"; each challenge contains one quote from Charles Darwin and two quotes from other people; correctly identify the Darwin quote in each challenge.

Use today's Sound Off to let us know how you scored (I only got 80%) and to give of us feedback.

Credit goes to Scriptulicious for compiling the quiz.



  1. I read five or less words of each quote and....

    "You got 8 out of 10... Pakicetid (extinct c. 53 million years ago)"

  2. Sorry, comments weren't working for a little while. Not sure why, but they seem to be up again.

  3. Philo,

    Great job on the format. I scored as a Dodo.

  4. Scrip said: "I scored as a Dodo"

    At least you scored.

  5. You got 5 out of 10... Dimetrodon (extinct c. 260 million years ago)

    Don't know what a Dimetrodon was, but I am going to assume it was an amazingly beautiful, intelligent and worthy creature who was unjustly killed off before it's time. Am I right?

  6. Lion:

    Dimetrodon was a lumbering monster with extra holes in its skull. But it was a really cool lumbering monster with extra holes in its skull!

  7. Were the extra holes because it's giant, overly intelligent brain needed to breathe, you think?

    And I am going to have to take issue with that artist's depiction of, what I am sure was, a beautiful creature.

  8. "Were the extra holes because it's giant, overly intelligent brain needed to breathe, you think?"

    Ermmmm... could be.

  9. I got 8 out of 10... Pakicetid.

    If I hadn't browsed through all those magazines celebrating Darwin day this month, I would have certainly scored zilch.

  10. Philo, I will take "could be" to mean "for sure." Thank you for confirming the awesomeness of the Dimetrodon!

  11. 9 out of 10. You got me on the last question. I should have gone with my first thought. I am surprised to hear that Darwin felt his father, friends, etc. were hellbound. I have never read Darwin, just a few articles about him. I chose my answers based on prayer, linguistics, knowing where other quotes probably came from, and knowing Script as well as I do. Clever way to get people to read things that may have an impact. The McGuffey Readers used to use Bible teachings for reading practice. Handwriting practice in former days utilized Bible text or maxims derived from Scripture. Excellent indoctrination methodology. Now, after reading these Quiz Quotes, I will have to wash my mind out with my morning Bible reading to restore my Biblical perspective.
    : )

    Do I dare find out what a Homo Habilis looks like?

  12. I took a quick look at a Wikipedia article and found this statement interesting:

    ^ New York Times article Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution published August 9, 2007 says "Scientists who dated and analyzed the specimens — a 1.44 million-year-old Homo habilis and a 1.55 million-year-old Homo erectus — said their findings challenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a million years."

    So, in other words, Science is just as splintered and fragmented in its views as Christianity. It was not that long ago that the Evolution "tree" became a "bush"....yet how many know this.....and when will this model evolve into something else? my Bible reading. I sought the truth....and found comfort.

  13. Is it too early to vote for quote of the week? Nothing like admitting brain washing...

    "I will have to wash my mind out with my morning Bible reading to restore my Biblical perspective."

  14. Hello Tandi,

    Consider that scientific discipline is responsive to the evidence. Dogmatic belief remains dogma despite evidence. It is still asserted by the majority of the paleo-anthropological community that homo habilis is either a direct ancestor or shares a direct ancestor with homo erectus. Co-existence of mother and daughter species does not disprove lineage. If such arguments were valid, then the simplistic argument of, "If humans evolved from a primate ancestor, then why are there still non-human primates?" would work as well.

  15. Tandi: "So, in other words, Science is just as splintered and fragmented in its views as Christianity"

    Knowing that H. Habilis and H. Erectus lived simultaneously splinters our understanding of evolution no more than the coexistence of Great Danes and Beagles splinters our understanding of dog breeding.

    Good job on the quiz, by the way.

    Lion: "I will take "could be" to mean "for sure."


  16. Hello Script,

    I am curious as to the authorship of Quote 2A and Quote 10A and C.

    And are you still planning a post on the Masoretic emendations?

  17. To me, the findings about homo habilis and homo erectus are no different from the findings between homo sapiens and Neanderthals. They were "cousins", not direct decedents from each other.

    But, still, they share a common ancestry. We're witnessing two different species of human living together at the same time.

    I'll risk putting my foot in my mouth and again-- and I welcome any opposing views to my opinion here:

    Darwin wasn't right about all the details of his theory. For example, his idea about genetics was flawed and rejected by science. That's why a hole could be seen in his theory back then.

    But when Mendel's work was discovered, genetics was born and accepted as good science.

    I must admit, it is not fair for me to suggest that the scientific community is aways on accord and always agrees. I'm sorry I implied that idea. I also don't mean to suggest that science is "perfect" and understands everything.

    The true nature of science, in my opinion, is about confirming what we think we know and changing our minds about it when we find we're wrong. People in science will have disagreements. But people in science will also strive to standardize their language within their fields so that they can try to be on the same page as much as possible.

    I think that in this regard, religion is far more subjective.

    Science finds fossils that shake up their current understanding of history-- so, it comes time to modify the current thought of history.

    But what if the "Gospel of Andrew" was found-- and it didn't have that "gnostic" flavor like, say, the Gospel of Judas or the Apocrypha. Could another Gospel that fit in well with Matthew or Luke ever be canonized?

    What if a missing letter of Paul were found? Many would be excited. But could it get canonized and added to the King James Bible?

    Just as scientific communities do over new discoveries, the religious community will debate about the legitimacy and the authenticity of some newly found ancient scripture text. That should be done. But after the dating comes in, and the textual criticism checked out-- would additions to the Bible even have a chance among the majority of denominations?

    For many, the Bible is static. It can't change.

    Sort of like wanting to keep constants in physics.

    But the difference here, I think is that if real, compelling evidence came along to counter constants within science-- the scientific community would eventually change. I feel that my statement will draw disagreement here, but this is my opinion.

    I'll admit. Dogma and strange beliefs do come up in scientific circles. But, if other scientists can run the same experiments under the same conditions and get totally different observations, the dogma will have to lose validity for science to move forward. But no matter how strange a belief might be, or how cherished a view might be, if legitimate observations are found and can be verified by others under the same conditions-- it's time to re-evaluate even the time honored views.

    Copernicus and Galileo reveled unpopular observations. Einstein's observations and predictions were strange to many and sometimes contradicted some of Newton's ideas. Einstein distanced himself from the new trend in quantum physics, but others couldn't deny the observations they confirmed.

    Their observations shook up science and challenged the status quo. Others will come along and shake up what we've learned from these past pioneers.

    OK, I'll shut up now. I think I've become guilty of beating a dead horse.

    My apologies, everyone.

  18. Uruk... so what you are saying is that people in the science community are generally more open minded to change, correction, and new information then people in the religious community?

  19. Tandi:

    2A = Richard Dawkins

    10A = Isaac Asimov

  20. Zee said: "so what you are saying is that people in the science community are generally more open minded to change, correction, and new information then people in the religious community?"

    I don't think that's 100% true, but I think most scientists would say it's at least an ideal that they aspire to.

  21. "Generally" implies that its not 100%. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what Uruk is saying.

  22. Hello Tandi,

    2A: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
    10A: Isaac Asmiov, Isaac Asimov’s Guide to the Bible
    10C: Robert G. Ingersoll, personal correspondence (?)

    I am particularly fond of 10A and 10C. These last two authors are examples of biblically literate atheists.

    I used to have a collection of all of the available biblical texts from the DSS. I once went through the 134 emendations in the MT and compared them to the available DSS manuscripts and made a chart. This chart documented that over 60% of the emendations were not found in the DSS. Hence, the DSS evidenced an earlier textual witness to the presence of the nomina sacra where the MT was “wrong.” Being that the KJV is based on the MT, then both are in error. If the KJV was inspired, one would expect the nomina sacra to be corrected. I will not be able to post on this because I am lacking documentation at the moment (it got lost along with my files during my divorce).

  23. >Uruk... so what you are saying is that people in the science community are generally more open minded to change, correction, and new information then people in the religious community?

    Not necessarily so. But, if I were to say "yes" to your question, I'd put a lot of emphasis on the word "generally". I think the religious community has a great number of people who are open to change, correction, and new information about their faith and the world around them.

    I think it's a job requirement for the science community to be open minded to change and correction. With science, everything aims to line up with the data, observations, and test results.

    Then, if new, solid data challenges a current idea, the long standing view point should be subjected to scrutiny and should be modified where necessary.

    This does not mean that all scientists and skeptics are open minded, however. And in an ironic way, perhaps the scientific and skeptic mindset is closed minded towards claims that don't have much support from data.

    For many people (not all) in the religious community, everything must fit within the framework of one's faith. Faith, for many people, is the proof against which everything else must be tested. So, anything that doesn't fit inside the framework of faith must either be bent to fit, or discarded.

    I think that the religious community is full of members who are open to change, correction and new information. But many religious people are taught to also guard their faith. I feel that this is particularly the case with people who have a literal interpretation of their faith's scripture text.

    I feel I can say this based on my own personal experiences, I was very closed minded when I practiced my faith. If an idea or activity didn't line up with my understanding of faith, it was wrong. That's that.

    Nowadays, I will consider opposing viewpoints. I admit to still having biases and prejudices, but I am trying more and more to listen to and reconsider a rebuttal. In the past, I would not have done so at all. I was too busy guarding my faith.

    Not everyone is like that in the religious community. But I was. And I worshiped with a large number of others who were like that, too.

    So, I'm curious now.

    If a new gospel were found . . . or a new Pauline epistle were found, would you think it had a chance at being canonized? Would you even care?

    Let's assume that the text did not have "gnostic" overtones to it.

  24. I would agree with the statement that people in the science community are generally more open minded to change, correction, and new information then people in the religious community. The word generally is important in the statement though.

    I highly doubt anything new would be canonized. No, I wouldn't care. I don't need a text to be canonized for me to read it or believe in it.