Of monkeys and penguins [LWN.net]

Of monkeys and penguins

Posted Sep 4, 2003 8:18 UTC (Thu) by jwharmanny (guest, #971) [Link]

Rsidd, do I understand correctly that:
- the writer of this letter has a different view than you on the Economist article
- therefore, he must be 'moronic'
- therefore, he must be believing the literal 7-day version of Genisis?

IMHO, believing the Bible, and believing the literal 7-day version of Genisis, has nothing to do with being moronic. And it has even less to do with the SCO case.

Of monkeys and penguins

Posted Sep 4, 2003 9:15 UTC (Thu) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link]

Moronic is a pretty strong (and mean-spirited) term, however it is evident that the letter's author is taking things too literally, and is not familiar with The Economist's writing style (droll and often a bit tongue in cheek) or their general opinion of Linux (quite favorable). As an Economist subscriber and Linux proponent, I too feel a bit embarassed by this guy's letter. He writes a bit like an angry bull that charges off having got a glimpse of a red comunist flag, without really knowing the score.

Of monkeys and penguins

Posted Sep 4, 2003 12:32 UTC (Thu) by pto (guest, #5753) [Link]

Besides, every long-time reader of the Economist knows that it is a "newspaper", not a magazine. (Try to understand the Brits, just try!)

Of monkeys and penguins

Posted Sep 4, 2003 15:01 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

IMHO, believing the Bible, and believing the literal 7-day version of Genisis, has nothing to do with being moronic.

An excusable point of view in the 19th century, but nobody with an elementary-school education today has a right to believe in a literal 7-day Genesis, any more than they have a right to believe that the earth is flat or that it is supported on the backs of elephants who stand on a turtle that swims in a sea (that latter bit is Hindu mythology, and it is recognised as mythology by even the most devout Hindus).

I called the letter writer "moronic" because I couldn't believe any normal person can interpret that Economist article as "glorifying SCO", and because I couldn't off-hand think of a stronger adjective. Even if he does believe in a 7-day creation and all (as you say, his beliefs are not relevant to the SCO case), it is totally obvious what the Economist author's point of view was. Oh well, I guess all periodicals receive such mail and will not see it as representative of the community.

Of monkeys and penguins

Posted Sep 4, 2003 16:50 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

An excusable point of view in the 19th century, but nobody with an elementary-school education today has a right to believe in a literal 7-day Genesis [snip]

First off, as a previous poster has already pointed out, the author of this letter did not express a belief in a "literal 7-day Genesis." I read the letter twice, and I can see no possible way that you could have rationally arrived at this conclusion based on the content of the letter. Nor do I see how you arrived at the conclusion that he is a "Bible-belter."

Second, for what it's worth, I have a B.S. in Computer Science, and I believe in a literal 7-day creation, at least as far as I know. I'm not really very well versed in theology, so there may be elements of this doctrine which I do not understand.

Third, your assertion that anyone has (or has not) the right to believe [whatever] demonstrates a level of arrogance that most people try to conceal, at least on a public forum. It seems reasonable to me to infer from your statements that you've been deluded by your own "wisdom."

I could further observe that it was this type of deluded thinking that led to the rise of fascism during the 20th century. This is quite a leap, but not any futher than what you've been willing to make!

Of monkeys and penguins

Posted Sep 4, 2003 17:38 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

First off, as a previous poster has already pointed out, the author of this letter did not express a belief in a "literal 7-day Genesis."

I did not say he did. I only said that the only way I can understand how he can interpret the article as "glorifying SCO" is if he himself was so deeply on the anti-Scopes side of the Scopes trial that he could not see the analogy for what it was. If there's another interpretation, please enlighten me.

Second, for what it's worth, I have a B.S. in Computer Science, and I believe in a literal 7-day creation

I'm saddened but no longer surprised. When I made the first post in this article I didn't realise how right I was. Some years ago I posted to a mailing list praising the American educational system as the best in the world, and an American replied saying it's the most screwed-up in the world; I didn't realise how right he was.

Please realise that the rest of the world, including the Vatican and other "conservative" Christians, left this particular debate behind generations ago. At best, some may like to interpret the 7 days as seven days in God's life which could be billions of years in Earth-terms; thus the "let there be light" was the big bang, the second day was a few billion years later, etc. A stretch, but whatever makes people happy.

Of monkeys and penguins

Posted Sep 4, 2003 17:56 UTC (Thu) by jwharmanny (guest, #971) [Link]

It's the fact that you (indirectly maybe, but still) claim that all people who believe the Bible literally, are moronic. That makes me saddened, especially since there is no obvious connection between this letter and the Christian beliefs. If you really want to insult people, please do it somewhere else.

Of monkeys and penguins

Posted Sep 4, 2003 18:28 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

It's the fact that you (indirectly maybe, but still) claim that all people who believe the Bible literally, are moronic.

I did not say that. I have no sympathy for them (maybe I should start accusing them of insulting my beliefs, in Hinduism/Buddhism?) but an intelligent literalist would still have understood the Economist's analogy, even if he disagreed with it. It was this ridiculous letter, castigating the Economist for what was a very pro-Linux and anti-SCO article, that prompted my post. (Again, if I have the creationism angle wrong and there was another reason why the letter writer so totally misinterpreted the article, I'm happy to hear it.)

BTW, if anyone is doubtful about my claim that the Vatican and other conservative Christians have left this debate behind, here's what the Pope said in 1996:

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis [1950]considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis... Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Already in 1950 it was a "serious hypothesis" but in 1982 the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences declared that "masses of scientific evidence render the application of the concept of evolution . . . beyond serious dispute." I believe Catholics are less literalist than Protestants, but I'm not aware of any continuing debate on this in any church outside the US.

Of monkeys and penguins

Posted Sep 4, 2003 20:24 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

I'm saddened but no longer surprised.

That's probably the most significant difference between you and me: I'm happy :-), and you're sad. :-(

Please realise that the rest of the world, including the Vatican and other "conservative" Christians, left this particular debate behind generations ago.

Well now it's just me against the rest of the world, is it! It's probably not even me, since I never really embraced the belief. What are my options, anyway?

At best, some may like to interpret the 7 days as seven days in God's life which could be billions of years in Earth-terms; thus the "let there be light" was the big bang, the second day was a few billion years later, etc.

I've heard of the 1000-years-to-one-day theory before, which seems credible since there is some supporting evidence in the Bible, but I'm always a bit incredulous of claims that involve measurements of billions of years. That's flying saucer territory as far as I'm concerned.

I'm always suprised (and I probably shouldn't be) by the amount of "religious" (not know what else to call it) stuff that pops up off-topic on LWN. It seems to be on the rise, especially the last couple of weeks.

Possible other interpretation/apology

Posted Sep 4, 2003 22:19 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

After reading the letter several times I see a possible other interpretation of what Mr Flugstad writes: he's perhaps arguing that the Economist is giving too much importance to SCO, and by "glorifying" their case he merely means giving it headline importance, not implying that it's a good or great case. If that is what he's saying, I still think the letter is uncalled-for -- the point could have been made more quietly and without such hostility. (I also think "glorify" is a poor choice of word. And I think he's wrong: this is already headline news, like it or not, and articles like the Economist's are very welcome. People like SCO find it far worse to be laughed at than angrily criticised, and the Scopes monkey-trial comparison was quite amusing.) But if that's the case, or if he meant something else altogether, I will wholeheartedly apologise for assuming he was a "bible-belter" who simply misunderstood the comparison of SCO to fundamentalist creationists and thought SCO was being glorified.