Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 262
Like Tree144Likes

Thread: Why are creationists dolts?

  1. #1 Why are creationists dolts? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    18
    Why do creationists use only verbal logic (and stupid at that) to justify their theory?

    Why also do many of them say that evolution has been used to justify inhumanity, when yeah, the Inquistion, slavery, genocide of native Americans, etc. were NOT justifed by religion, haha..


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    They lack real evidence. They like to blame evolution because they suspect their creationist ideas are bullshit. Blaming the messenger for "bad news".

    Religious guy: "Have you heard the Good News" ?
    non-religious guy: "Yeah. Have you heard the bad news ? The Good News is bullshit."


    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by looshooz View Post
    Why do creationists use only verbal logic (and stupid at that) to justify their theory?

    Why also do many of them say that evolution has been used to justify inhumanity, when yeah, the Inquistion, slavery, genocide of native Americans, etc. were NOT justifed by religion, haha..
    I'm not sure what you mean by "verbal" logic. They can't very well use maths.

    Their "logic" all proceeds from an axiom unique to them, which is that everything in the bible (both Old and New Testaments) is literally true. Everything they say follows from that and, where conflicts arise with other branches of thought, they give precedence to literal truth of the bible on principle, no matter how foolish it makes them appear to everyone else.

    It's pretty crazy because at least as early as 400AD (and probably before) theologians like Augustine of Hippo had already realised that you can't take it ALL literally, as there are internal contradictions if you do. The whole history of the Christian church has been one of studying the bible in order to interpret it - and of course there have been plenty of differing interpretations - just as there are with Shakespeare's plays for instance. Creationists are often extreme Protestants who seek to avoid interpretation, which they regard as suspect. But the trouble is, by rejecting on principle all the teaching and thought of theologians down the centuries, they put themselves in the position of reinventing the wheel, often badly, each Sunday.

    Mainstream Christians (at least the educated ones) tend not to be creationists, because they can see the absurdity of biblical literalism - which in turn means they have no problem with science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    mind you, i can see where creationists are coming from : they fear that if one portion of the bible is shown not to be literally true, doubt can be cast on everything else in it
    Bad Robot and umbradiago like this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    mind you, i can see where creationists are coming from : they fear that if one portion of the bible is shown not to be literally true, doubt can be cast on everything else in it
    Indeed. BUT, that is precisely because they refuse to benefit from the study and thought of scholars of theology over almost 2,000 years. If they paid any attention to how others have wrestled with the conflicts and inconsistencies, they would have a body of theology that would enable them to present a version of Christianity that is suitable for educated people, just as the mainstream denominations do.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    We should also not ignore the fact that well meaning, sincere persons can be totally wrong. (It happened to me once; I think it was 1978.)
    umbradiago and samsmoot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    944
    Not all creationists are dolts. Recently I met a medical doctor who started talking about the Fall of Man (Baptist of course).
    You can't educate them, but you can challenge them. Point out that a creator God must be the source of all things and therefore the source of all evil also. Why should a benevolent God have created the Devil?
    Ask them about the age of the Earth. They are likely to say 6000 years. Point out that the age of agriculture began a thousand years before this. Point out that the last Ice Age was about 15,000 years ago. Ask how large dinosaurs fitted into the Ark. If they say it was dinosaurs' eggs then ask them if there is any limit to stupidity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Not all creationists are dolts.
    True some of them are just dishonest (or bright but gullible).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Just leave them alone to their own beliefs for that is their faith that they rely upon to see them through.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Not all creationists are dolts. Recently I met a medical doctor who started talking about the Fall of Man (Baptist of course).
    You can't educate them, but you can challenge them. Point out that a creator God must be the source of all things and therefore the source of all evil also. Why should a benevolent God have created the Devil?
    Ask them about the age of the Earth. They are likely to say 6000 years. Point out that the age of agriculture began a thousand years before this. Point out that the last Ice Age was about 15,000 years ago. Ask how large dinosaurs fitted into the Ark. If they say it was dinosaurs' eggs then ask them if there is any limit to stupidity.
    But hang on, doesn't your last line support the proposition that your example was supposed to refute, viz. that creationists are dolts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Just leave them alone to their own beliefs for that is their faith that they rely upon to see them through.
    I have no problem with that as long as they don't try and push those beliefs as science... Unfortunately they do, so they deserve every bit of criticism and every put down they get.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Just leave them alone to their own beliefs for that is their faith that they rely upon to see them through.
    I have no problem with that as long as they don't try and push those beliefs as science... Unfortunately they do, so they deserve every bit of criticism and every put down they get.

    Is the problem of (Christian) creationism trying to be taught in science education also prevalent in England?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    No (thankfully) my only experience of creationism is online. I have spent a lot of time on science forums over the years and creationists are not shy in butting in with their crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Just leave them alone to their own beliefs for that is their faith that they rely upon to see them through.
    I have no problem with that as long as they don't try and push those beliefs as science... Unfortunately they do, so they deserve every bit of criticism and every put down they get.

    Is the problem of (Christian) creationism trying to be taught in science education also prevalent in England?
    I'm suggesting that by letting those who believe in something be able to have the right to do so whether they are right or wrong to you or me. As we have the right to not believe in a supernatural power they seem to enjoy doing so. Do we have the right to prevent them from doing what they want or do they have the right suppressing us in our views? As to teaching beliefs that's up to the church not the educational system in my views. As for TV they already have religious programs that are running daily and some run all day long. That should be enough , to me, for them to have the opportunity to have their views spread but little is being done for the advancement of the sciences on today's TV.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    creationism is not a theory. it is not even good hypothesis. i believe it is the most ignorant of speculations. it ignores books and books of geology and archaeology facts that are disproves. this sort of ignorance seems common in the usa. why ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Just leave them alone to their own beliefs for that is their faith that they rely upon to see them through.
    I have no problem with that as long as they don't try and push those beliefs as science... Unfortunately they do, so they deserve every bit of criticism and every put down they get.

    Is the problem of (Christian) creationism trying to be taught in science education also prevalent in England?
    I'm suggesting that by letting those who believe in something be able to have the right to do so whether they are right or wrong to you or me. As we have the right to not believe in a supernatural power they seem to enjoy doing so. Do we have the right to prevent them from doing what they want or do they have the right suppressing us in our views? As to teaching beliefs that's up to the church not the educational system in my views. As for TV they already have religious programs that are running daily and some run all day long. That should be enough , to me, for them to have the opportunity to have their views spread but little is being done for the advancement of the sciences on today's TV.
    and I'm saying I have no problem with them believing whatever they want as long as they don't push that belief as a scientific theory. They have a right to their own beliefs, they do not have a right to their own facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    and I'm saying I have no problem with them believing whatever they want as long as they don't push that belief as a scientific theory. They have a right to their own beliefs, they do not have a right to their own facts.
    I concur.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    We should also not ignore the fact that well meaning, sincere persons can be totally wrong. (It happened to me once; I think it was 1978.)
    was that the last time you were well-meaning and sincere ?
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Ooh!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Laredo, TX, USA
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    ...or do they have the right suppressing us in our views?
    Some creationists do actually think they have a right to suppress us for not being ignorant enough to believe what they believe.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Not all creationists are dolts. Recently I met a medical doctor who started talking about the Fall of Man (Baptist of course).
    You can't educate them, but you can challenge them. Point out that a creator God must be the source of all things and therefore the source of all evil also. Why should a benevolent God have created the Devil?
    Ask them about the age of the Earth. They are likely to say 6000 years. Point out that the age of agriculture began a thousand years before this. Point out that the last Ice Age was about 15,000 years ago. Ask how large dinosaurs fitted into the Ark. If they say it was dinosaurs' eggs then ask them if there is any limit to stupidity.
    But hang on, doesn't your last line support the proposition that your example was supposed to refute, viz. that creationists are dolts?
    Sorry if that was unclear. I heard a creationist being interviewed on the subject of dinosaurs in the Ark. Getting hold of large male and female and fitting them in could be a problem, so the answer was that if it probably was the eggs that were gathered. Obviously they knew that one egg was male and the other female. This proves there is no limit to some people's stupidity when supporting faith.
    In a similar way the fossil hunters of C19 were undermined by the argument that God had deliberately hidden fossils as a test of faith. Two things in particular were bad news for theists: geological hammers, and lightning rods which weakened the power of God's retribution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Not all creationists are dolts. Recently I met a medical doctor who started talking about the Fall of Man (Baptist of course).
    You can't educate them, but you can challenge them. Point out that a creator God must be the source of all things and therefore the source of all evil also. Why should a benevolent God have created the Devil?
    Ask them about the age of the Earth. They are likely to say 6000 years. Point out that the age of agriculture began a thousand years before this. Point out that the last Ice Age was about 15,000 years ago. Ask how large dinosaurs fitted into the Ark. If they say it was dinosaurs' eggs then ask them if there is any limit to stupidity.
    But hang on, doesn't your last line support the proposition that your example was supposed to refute, viz. that creationists are dolts?
    Sorry if that was unclear. I heard a creationist being interviewed on the subject of dinosaurs in the Ark. Getting hold of large male and female and fitting them in could be a problem, so the answer was that if it probably was the eggs that were gathered. Obviously they knew that one egg was male and the other female. This proves there is no limit to some people's stupidity when supporting faith.
    In a similar way the fossil hunters of C19 were undermined by the argument that God had deliberately hidden fossils as a test of faith. Two things in particular were bad news for theists: geological hammers, and lightning rods which weakened the power of God's retribution.
    That's a very funny story.

    But please do not perpetuate the lazy idea that "theists" and creationists are in some way the same thing. Most educated Christians would say geological hammers have been wonderful for the human race. Two good examples would be William Buckland: William Buckland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, who was an Anglican priest (Dean of Westminster, no less) and a geologist in the early c.19th, and Cardinal Wiseman, who gave a series of lectures in the 1840s, in Rome, on why the new geological discoveries were not in conflict with the Catholic faith. Both these influential men were writing and speaking - with the implicit approval of their hierarchies - several decades before Origin of Species was published.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    944
    Yes, some do just cherry-pick the Bible, others regard it as literal truth. So neither are trustworthy.

    Doubter: Why do you think the Sun is so far away?
    Creationist: Because God put it there to warm the Earth.

    Doubter: Then God must have have misunderstood thermodynamics. Less than one billionth of the Sun's energy finds its way to Earth. Why didn't He make it more energy efficient and about the size and distance away of the Moon?

    Creationist: There are things that only God knows.
    Doubter: That proves that faith is the final refuge of fools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    But please do not perpetuate the lazy idea that "theists" and creationists are in some way the same thing.
    They are in "some" way. Creationist are a subset of Christians. Unfortunately an influential group hell bent on destroying the American educational system.
    adelady, Bad Robot and umbradiago like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior samsmoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Most educated Christians would say geological hammers have been wonderful for the human race. Two good examples would be William Buckland: William Buckland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...
    Good link and an interesting read. I enjoyed the bit about his covetousness of royal remains and the subsequent cannibalism thereof. Still, probably better than eating a mole.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Scientists and religionists can be easily differentiated: one lot is arrogant, irascible and disdainful, the other believes in God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    944
    William Buckland would I'm sure have been a creationist and like Fitzroy on the Beagle he was almost certainly looking for evidence of the Creation in his work. But Buckland in the light of present knowledge would have had the intelligence to revoke Creationism, so I don't think we can compare his beliefs with those of contemporary creationists who will not submit to reason.
    Buckland contributed to these treatises:
    The Earl of Bridgewater, a gentleman naturalist, commissioned eight Bridgewater Treatises upon his deathbed to explore "the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation.
    umbradiago and samsmoot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    William Buckland would I'm sure have been a creationist and like Fitzroy on the Beagle he was almost certainly looking for evidence of the Creation in his work. But Buckland in the light of present knowledge would have had the intelligence to revoke Creationism, so I don't think we can compare his beliefs with those of contemporary creationists who will not submit to reason.
    Buckland contributed to these treatises:
    The Earl of Bridgewater, a gentleman naturalist, commissioned eight Bridgewater Treatises upon his deathbed to explore "the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation.
    Absolutely, he would have seen the wonders of the universe as evidence of God's creation. But he would not have subscribed to Bishop Ussher's silly chronology for example.
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i want to take issue with the description of creationists as "dolts"
    it's a rather facile classification to describe anyone who disagrees with you as stupid, even if they're wrong

    sometimes our prejudices prevent us from recognising/accepting what is objectively true, and that has not necessarily anything to do with intelligence
    samsmoot likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    A creationist has to be capable of believing something which all available evidence shows to be wrong. Who but a dolt could do that?
    stonecutter and anticorncob28 like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    i want to take issue with the description of creationists as "dolts"
    it's a rather facile classification to describe anyone who disagrees with you as stupid, even if they're wrong
    Perhaps not stupid, but willfully ignorant and trying to keep everyone else ignorant--which is much much worse.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Who but a dolt could do that?
    Would the answer be "a dolt education"?
    (I'll get me coat...)
    RedPanda and umbradiago like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    playing devil's advocate here : i wouldn't be surprised that in their view creationists would put it that they are willing to dismiss the lesser truth in favour of what they consider to be the higher truth

    you can disagree with that view of lesser and higher, but in a twisted logical sort of sense it fits, provided you can believe that black is white if it says so in the bible
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    playing devil's advocate here : i wouldn't be surprised that in their view creationists would put it that they are willing to dismiss the lesser truth in favour of what they consider to be the higher truth

    you can disagree with that view of lesser and higher, but in a twisted logical sort of sense it fits, provided you can believe that black is white if it says so in the bible
    Yes but it is still an exercise in self-delusion, surely? A bit like Tony Wedgwood-Benn continuing to revere Mao Tse Tung as a hero, long after there was ample evidence of the millions of deaths he caused. So I agree: people sometimes do hang onto these nutty views because so much of their self-image is tied up with them, but it is no more than what Ibsen called the "Life-lie". (A great concept that, and a penetrating insight into the side of human nature that we would rather not acknowledge.)
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    So I agree: people sometimes do hang onto these nutty views because so much of their self-image is tied up with them, but it is no more than what Ibsen called the "Life-lie". (A great concept that, and a penetrating insight into the side of human nature that we would rather not acknowledge.)
    that's exactly why creationists behave so vehemently when trying to defend the indefensible : what is at stake is not just the truth of a mere book, but the content and meaning of their whole lives
    umbradiago likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by stonecutter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    ...or do they have the right suppressing us in our views?
    Some creationists do actually think they have a right to suppress us for not being ignorant enough to believe what they believe.
    True but the majority of them don't.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,280
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by stonecutter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    ...or do they have the right suppressing us in our views?
    Some creationists do actually think they have a right to suppress us for not being ignorant enough to believe what they believe.
    True but the majority of them don't.
    Unfortunately the minority that DO seem to be the ones in charge of children's education in places like Texas, etc...
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    They aren't the minority at all in many local towns and in some states. The creationist are well organized and get broad voter support to continue to challenge evolution in public schools or finding ways to duck the law by diverting public dollars to religious/creationist backed schools through charter schools and voucher programs. They also bring a lot of pressure to biology teachers to the degree than more than half avoid teaching evolution--meaning they are not really teaching biology at all.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Try traveling in the southern US, Ph; in our "bible belt" creationist belief is the norm. On second thought, stay where you are: civilization.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No (thankfully) my only experience of creationism is online. I have spent a lot of time on science forums over the years and creationists are not shy in butting in with their crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    I admit a guilty pleasure I have; pointing out to people of any faith that the fastest-growing form of 'faith' is non-belief in a creator. They hate this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    THe persistence of superstitious belief is astounding. Remember the famous photo of the Lock Ness monster, apparently real and it's long neck and head leaving behind it a wake ? "Looked" sorta' convincing, no ? Years after this picture circulated the globe, two gentlemen admitted producing that hoax. Publically revealed how they did it and why ! And guess what ? Many, many people kept right-on believing the faked photo showed a pre-historic creature. What some believe is a matter of choice to lots of folks. Some people are reluctant to give-up their "mysteries". The reason they do so has little to do with science, and much to do with psychology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by umbradiago View Post
    I admit a guilty pleasure I have; pointing out to people of any faith that the fastest-growing form of 'faith' is non-belief in a creator. They hate this.
    As do many atheists, when one points out that their belief is equally a matter of faith, due to there being no way to prove or disprove the existence of God.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    As do many atheists, when one points out that their belief is equally a matter of faith, due to there being no way to prove or disprove the existence of God.
    Whut?
    Lack of belief is an absence of belief, and therefore an absence of faith.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    Sorry if that was unclear. I heard a creationist being interviewed on the subject of dinosaurs in the Ark. Getting hold of large male and female and fitting them in could be a problem, so the answer was that if it probably was the eggs that were gathered. Obviously they knew that one egg was male and the other female. This proves there is no limit to some people's stupidity when supporting faith.
    In a similar way the fossil hunters of C19 were undermined by the argument that God had deliberately hidden fossils as a test of faith. Two things in particular were bad news for theists: geological hammers, and lightning rods which weakened the power of God's retribution.
    hilarious. (When I first encountered fundamentalists and creationists on the internet I thought I was watching comedy videos, it took me a while to realize that it was not jokes but what people "actually" believed, "1- Hahaha, 2-wow this guys needs an oscar, it almost sounds like he beleives what hes saying, great comedy, hilarious and very convincing. 3-lol, hey it almost sounds like he thinks its true... 4- holy crap I think these guys are not joking, I think maybe this is not a comedy channel" then It took me weeks to convince my girlfriend that fundamentalists/creationists were real and not comedy acts. She was arguing that "of course its a joke, its a comedy channel they are just acting in character its all part of the act, you are being fooled, theres no way someone would believe that, come on.")
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    icewendigo, you are most fortunate in not having been exposed to such beliefs previously. If you don't mind, could you share with us - approxiamtely - where you live that enable you to avoid such types? I quite understand if you would rather not share such info.
    umbradiago and samsmoot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    645
    Yes, and they've done a good (meaning 'bad') job of it. Texas is where most schoolbooks are 'composed', with an emphasis more on sales nationwide than on accuracy. I wouldn't 'allow' Texas to secede, I'd make it mandatory. The "lone-star state" deserves alone-ness.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    But please do not perpetuate the lazy idea that "theists" and creationists are in some way the same thing.
    They are in "some" way. Creationist are a subset of Christians. Unfortunately an influential group hell bent on destroying the American educational system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    I prefer not to, but can share that I have lived on 3 continents and have travelled to many places. Surprisingly, outside the US(or US/UK/etc) when you dont know about creationists, you can visit the US (Disney, etc) and watch many american movies like Star Wars etc read history books about the US, read congressional documents, reports, etc it is possible to know a LOT about the US even many many things that most Americans on the street dont know about their own country, and nonetheless not be exposed to Creationism (or not recognize it as such if you are) while assuming that religious people draw lessons from allegories/fables without believing they are actually true. You can even go to an american school without this subject coming up(talking about music, movies, math, girls, teenage issues, whatever, without the "hey, creationists..."), talk with American friends and collegues about various subjects but either the other person thinks you know about creationists and so doesnt bother saying "hey, did you know about creationists?" or the topic can simply not fall on this subject.
    Last edited by icewendigo; March 27th, 2014 at 02:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Maybe it's unfair to psycho-analyze people whose scientific opinions I don't agree with (a kind of ad hominem argument) but I sometimes wonder why creationists don't get so bent out of shape by other scientific theories - what is it about evolution that is such a bee in their bonnet? Why not electromagnetism? Why isn't gravity controversial? I'm not sure creationism has anything directly to do with religion or the Bible per se. I don't think they really care that the Bible says the earth was created in seven days or forgot to mention dinosaurs. I think the main reason is that evolution forces you to confront mortality. If we are just another life form that has evolved from other life forms,at what point were we issued souls? Do other primates have them? Do dogs, fish, chickens, and amoebas have them? Do they all end up in heaven with Grandma waiting for us?

    The desire to survive is about as deep seated as it gets, as far as psychological motivations go, and anything that threatens it will likely result in an a strong reaction, even if it's irrational. It's funny how quickly quantum woo science theories are embraced if they seem to offer a way out of this dilemma and a bridge to another realm where we might survive death. So my answer is creationist are dolts because of fear of death.
    Last edited by DianeG; March 27th, 2014 at 05:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    mind you, i can see where creationists are coming from : they fear that if one portion of the bible is shown not to be literally true, doubt can be cast on everything else in it
    Does that really change the central teachings though? Christianity has mostly been about moral teachings, you can still hold these to be the principles that God expects of you even if the book is not literal, if anything given some of the passages in the bible I find a literal reading to be completely inconsistent with Christianity...
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,280
    These are the people who honestly believe that if they don't have some magical being dictating what they can and can't do, it gives them free reign to go around murdering and raping and stealing, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Does that really change the central teachings though? Christianity has mostly been about moral teachings, you can still hold these to be the principles that God expects of you even if the book is not literal, if anything given some of the passages in the bible I find a literal reading to be completely inconsistent with Christianity...
    i would go careful about moral teachings : you really have to cherry-pick your way through the bible to make its morals compatible with those of present-day society
    to be honest, to stay on the safe side you'd better stay clear of the old testament altogether
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    And completely stay clear of much of the NT as well....the icky parts about punishing, and killing and condemning to hell children for the offenses of their ancestors, abandoning their families, not joining in marriage, chiding people for wanting to bury their dead and lots that indicated he considered the OT mythology literal.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Maybe it's unfair to psycho-analyze people whose scientific opinions I don't agree with (a kind of ad hominem argument) but I sometimes wonder why creationists don't get so bent out of shape by other scientific theories - what is it about evolution that is such a bee in their bonnet? Why not electromagnetism? Why isn't gravity controversial? I'm not sure creationism has anything directly to do with religion or the Bible per se. I don't think they really care that the Bible says the earth was created in seven days or forgot to mention dinosaurs. I think the main reason is that evolution forces you to confront mortality. If we are just another life form that has evolved from other life forms,at what point were we issued souls? Do other primates have them? Do dogs, fish, chickens, and amoebas have them? Do they all end up in heaven with Grandma waiting for us?

    The desire to survive is about as deep seated as it gets, as far as psychological motivations go, and anything that threatens it will likely result in an a strong reaction, even if it's irrational. It's funny how quickly quantum woo science theories are embraced if they seem to offer a way out of this dilemma and a bridge to another realm where we might survive death. So my answer is creationist are dolts because of fear of death.
    I have to say the underlined portion is a bit off base. The whole idea of Judeo christian belief about life after death is that it is selective, not even all humans get to experience the good stuff just those who have made the grade. All of the bible can be seen as God trying to improve the poor quality of the product His univers is producing. All of existence is a garden to grow "saints", but left to them selves humans arn't making very many, so like a good gardener He pruns and props up, weeds and cultivates...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Maybe it's unfair to psycho-analyze people whose scientific opinions I don't agree with (a kind of ad hominem argument) but I sometimes wonder why creationists don't get so bent out of shape by other scientific theories - what is it about evolution that is such a bee in their bonnet? Why not electromagnetism? Why isn't gravity controversial? I'm not sure creationism has anything directly to do with religion or the Bible per se. I don't think they really care that the Bible says the earth was created in seven days or forgot to mention dinosaurs. I think the main reason is that evolution forces you to confront mortality. If we are just another life form that has evolved from other life forms,at what point were we issued souls? Do other primates have them? Do dogs, fish, chickens, and amoebas have them? Do they all end up in heaven with Grandma waiting for us?

    The desire to survive is about as deep seated as it gets, as far as psychological motivations go, and anything that threatens it will likely result in an a strong reaction, even if it's irrational. It's funny how quickly quantum woo science theories are embraced if they seem to offer a way out of this dilemma and a bridge to another realm where we might survive death. So my answer is creationist are dolts because of fear of death.
    I have to say the underlined portion is a bit off base. The whole idea of Judeo christian belief about life after death is that it is selective, not even all humans get to experience the good stuff just those who have made the grade. All of the bible can be seen as God trying to improve the poor quality of the product His univers is producing. All of existence is a garden to grow "saints", but left to them selves humans arn't making very many, so like a good gardener He pruns and props up, weeds and cultivates...

    Oh, I see, so then there is a probationary period regarding possible after-life status? And is it just for humans? And at what point in evolution did this begin? With Homo sapiens sapiens? or a bit farther back with Homo heidelbergensis? Are there any neanderthals in heaven right now?
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Just leave them alone to their own beliefs for that is their faith that they rely upon to see them through.
    I have no problem with that as long as they don't try and push those beliefs as science... Unfortunately they do, so they deserve every bit of criticism and every put down they get.
    They can provide all the evidence they wish and have hypothesis.. I dont have a problem with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    But when the hypothesis is tested it fails unless you are very dishonest about the testing. If it was science the hypothesis would have been rejected. It hasn't been, creationism is not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    Oh, I see, so then there is a probationary period regarding possible after-life status? And is it just for humans? And at what point in evolution did this begin? With Homo sapiens sapiens? or a bit farther back with Homo heidelbergensis? Are there any neanderthals in heaven right now?
    "probationary period" ? When did I say anything about a probationary period? I said that the mainstream Judeo Christian tradition is all about God selecting from among all the souls of the dead those He feels He has a use for, and discarding the rest.

    Is your issue with the existence of a Soul? Admittedly it is an inexact term. But it apparently means some portion of a living person that persists after death. It used to be possible to argue that such was not possible to prove the existence of, and that more likely was that once dead there was nothing left of a person. Give the threats of hell fire and damnation, the idea that nothing persists of us after our deaths, is comforting. Unfortunately for the "oblivion seekers", relativity theory has provided scientific support for the permanent existence of human idenity. Relativity tells us that the appearence of time as a sequence of events in which only "now" is real and "past " is no longer existent, is infact an illusion. Time is a dimension and any point on the time continum is equally "real". I was a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960, I will always be a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960. Past events are locked in as part of the fabric of the universe. Ten thousand years from now I will still be a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960.

    God is defined in that mainstream judeo christian tradition as a Being who is trans temporal and has equal existence in all of time. From the prespective of such a being all moments are "now". All creatures are alive. He has access to all of them. So... yes, you have an everlasting soul, it is you as you are now. You are living your "eternal life" right now and what your are and what you make of yourself, is what you will be stuck with being, forever. That is mostly science not theology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Unfortunately for the "oblivion seekers", relativity theory has provided scientific support for the permanent existence of human idenity.
    Citation needed.

    Relativity tells us that the appearence of time as a sequence of events in which only "now" is real and "past " is no longer existent, is infact an illusion. Time is a dimension and any point on the time continum is equally "real". I was a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960, I will always be a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960. Past events are locked in as part of the fabric of the universe. Ten thousand years from now I will still be a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960.
    If you're going to get all wishy washy about it...
    So what? It's not accessible, it can't do anything: it's gone.

    God is defined in that mainstream judeo christian tradition as a Being who is trans temporal and has equal existence in all of time. From the prespective of such a being all moments are "now". All creatures are alive. He has access to all of them. So... yes, you have an everlasting soul, it is you as you are now. You are living your "eternal life" right now and what your are and what you make of yourself, is what you will be stuck with being, forever. That is mostly science not theology.
    Nah.
    Not even close to science.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Oh, I see, so then there is a probationary period regarding possible after-life status? And is it just for humans? And at what point in evolution did this begin? With Homo sapiens sapiens? or a bit farther back with Homo heidelbergensis? Are there any neanderthals in heaven right now?
    "probationary period" ? When did I say anything about a probationary period? I said that the mainstream Judeo Christian tradition is all about God selecting from among all the souls of the dead those He feels He has a use for, and discarding the rest.

    Is your issue with the existence of a Soul? Admittedly it is an inexact term. But it apparently means some portion of a living person that persists after death. It used to be possible to argue that such was not possible to prove the existence of, and that more likely was that once dead there was nothing left of a person. Give the threats of hell fire and damnation, the idea that nothing persists of us after our deaths, is comforting. Unfortunately for the "oblivion seekers", relativity theory has provided scientific support for the permanent existence of human idenity. Relativity tells us that the appearence of time as a sequence of events in which only "now" is real and "past " is no longer existent, is infact an illusion. Time is a dimension and any point on the time continum is equally "real". I was a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960, I will always be a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960. Past events are locked in as part of the fabric of the universe. Ten thousand years from now I will still be a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960.

    God is defined in that mainstream judeo christian tradition as a Being who is trans temporal and has equal existence in all of time. From the prespective of such a being all moments are "now". All creatures are alive. He has access to all of them. So... yes, you have an everlasting soul, it is you as you are now. You are living your "eternal life" right now and what your are and what you make of yourself, is what you will be stuck with being, forever. That is mostly science not theology.

    Fine, but you're avoiding a very simple question - at what point in evolution did human beings develop, or receive from God, the potential for life after death? You can play around with the concept of time all you like, but even if the experience of being a student in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1960 is some how "eternal" that does not mean that the events that take place after your death will be quite so interesting, that there will be "you" to experience them. Are you suggesting that your life will simply replay like an endless loop?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    But when the hypothesis is tested it fails unless you are very dishonest about the testing. If it was science the hypothesis would have been rejected. It hasn't been, creationism is not science.
    There are many different creation hypothesis for just about everything know to Us, and many of those ideas are grounded/rooted in science while some are rooted in science fiction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    Which hypotheses are you referring to? Every creationist argument I've seen as a hidden "Godditit" somewhere, if you have one that doesn't present it and show it is a better theory (i.e. makes more accurate, testable predictions) than the current scientific theories.

    If you want to accept creationism as science that's your lookout :shrug: My standards (and those of the rest of the scientific community) are a tad higher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Which hypotheses are you referring to? Every creationist argument I've seen as a hidden "Godditit" somewhere, if you have one that doesn't present it and show it is a better theory (i.e. makes more accurate, testable predictions) than the current scientific theories. If you want to accept creationism as science that's your lookout :shrug: My standards (and those of the rest of the scientific community) are a tad higher.
    I do not accept the belief in creationism or the belief that creationism has not or did not occur.The universe produces intelligent beings that are capable of creation as well as random unintelligent creation/configuration that occurs by chance which is governed by the laws within our universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    But do you have evidence that the universe did not "produce intelligent beings that are capable of creation" via "chance which is governed by the laws within our universe", and that there is a different mecahnism for producing "intelligent" vs "non-intelligent" systems? If you do present it, if not it is basically saying "Goddidit" and is just another unsupported belief :shrug:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I do not accept the belief in creationism or the belief that creationism has not or did not occur.
    Yeah, some confusion here:
    1) You weren't asked if you believe it.
    2) There is no "belief" that creationism did not occur - there's simply no evidence to support it.

    With regard to point 1) you stated:
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    There are many different creation hypothesis for just about everything know to Us, and many of those ideas are grounded/rooted in science while some are rooted in science fiction.
    And were asked:
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Which hypotheses are you referring to?
    You haven't answered.

    You made the claim that "many" ideas of creation are grounded in science: please list them.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    I’m not out to offend anyone or attack their religious views. Debates about spiritual matters are futile anyway. Science cannot prove the non-existence of things, any more than I can prove that there is not a rhinoceros secretly living in my basement. If I have no evidence that there is, should I keep running down stairs to check? Asking science to prove the non-existence of things is asking it to prove an infinite number of propositions an infinite numbers of times, which is impossible. Scientific discussions of spiritual matters almost always deteriorate into the childish repartee of “You can’t prove it exists”/ “Yeah, well, you can’t prove it doesn’t exist, either.”


    The question I was trying to address is what is it about evolution that makes it so inflamatory? Christians, even those who identify as fundamentalists, have reconciled their beliefs with other scientific concepts, or so it would seem. You don’t see heated debates in the state legislatures or school boards over teaching photosynthesis or gravity, or even the heliocentric solar system. Some Christians might even feel that the Biblical description “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” is entirely compatible with the big bang. They can choose to see the Biblical description as an apt metaphor, or the big bang as the physical manifestation of God’s will.


    The problem with Creationism isn’t really creation, or the idea of God as the ultimate cause of things, the prime mover. In Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design he says “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” What I find remarkable, though, is not the conclusion he eventually comes to, but the seriousness with which he treats the question. He discusses the question of God in an entire chapter or more in a previous book, in relationship to an open or closed universe. He is definitely not dismissive of it, in the way that someone like Richard Dawkins is. Hawking does not treat it like a mass delusion that needs to be eradicated; it is not ridiculous to him to even entertain the idea. And that, I think, is worth noting.


    The problem with Creationism isn’t creation, or even God, – it’s death. Evolution is much more difficult to view as just another thing in God’s creative tool box because of the inherent questions it raises about mortality and souls and an afterlife. Sealeaf may have found a way to reconcile religion with science with the idea that time is meaningless and everything exists and always has, but I suspect the vast majority of Christians would not share that interpretation of Heaven. They are hoping for something a little more substantial when it comes to life after death – a continuation – and not simply jumping around in time like the characters in Kurt Vonnegut's novels, experiencing different moments of one’s life, which may not have been all that terrific to begin with, for reasons utterly beyond ones control.


    As Trivium noted in an earlier post, evolution is not incompatible with the ethical or moral teachings of Christianity (do unto others, charity, forgiveness, etc) but evolution does seriously undermine belief in a man who rose from the dead and grants us eternal life. That is what Creationists are so bent out of shape about.
    Last edited by DianeG; April 8th, 2014 at 01:19 PM. Reason: typo
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    The question I was trying to address is what is it about evolution that makes it so inflamatory?
    Because monotheists cannot stomach the idea that we are descended from ape like creatures, who in turn are descended from lower life forms, even pigs.
    Pigs look us straight in the eye and see an equal (Winston Churchill)
    KALSTER and DianeG like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    I’m not out to offend anyone or attack their religious views. Debates about spiritual matters are futile anyway. Science cannot prove the non-existence of things, any more than I can prove that there is not a rhinoceros secretly living in my basement. If I have no evidence that there is, should I keep running down stairs to check? Asking science to prove the non-existence of things is asking it to prove an infinite number of propositions an infinite numbers of times, which is impossible. Scientific discussions of spiritual matters almost always deteriorate into the childish repartee of “You can’t prove it exists”/ “Yeah, well, you can’t prove it doesn’t exist, either.”


    The question I was trying to address is what is it about evolution that makes it so controversial? Christians, even those who identify as fundamentalists, have reconciled their beliefs with other scientific concepts, or so it would seem. You don’t see heated debates in the state legislatures or school boards over teaching photosynthesis or gravity, or even heliocentric solar system. Some Christians might even feel that the Biblical description “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” is entirely compatible with the big bang. They can choose to see the Biblical description as an apt metaphor, or the big bang as the physical manifestation of God’s will.


    The problem with Creationism isn’t really creation, or the idea of God as the ultimate cause of things, the prime mover. In Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design he says “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” What I find remarkable, though, is not the conclusion he eventually comes to, but the seriousness with which he treats the question. He discusses the question of God in an entire chapter or more in a previous book, in relationship to an open or closed universe. He is definitely not dismissive of it, in the way that someone like Richard Dawkins is. Hawking does not treat it like a mass delusion that needs to be eradicated; it is not ridiculous to him to even entertain the idea. And that, I think, is worth noting.


    The problem with Creationism isn’t creation, or even God, – it’s death. Evolution is much more difficult to view as just another thing in God’s creative tool box because of the inherent questions it raises about mortality and souls and an afterlife. Sealeaf may have found a way to reconcile religion with science with the idea that time is meaningless and everything exists and always has, but I suspect the vast majority of Christians would not share that interpretation of Heaven. They are hoping for something a little more substantial when it comes to life after death – a continuation – and not simply jumping around in time like the characters in Kurt’s Vonnegut novels, experiencing different moments of one’s life, which may not have been all that terrific to begin with, for reasons utterly beyond ones control.


    As Trivium noted in an earlier post, evolution is not incompatible with the ethical or moral teachings of Christianity (do unto others, charity, forgiveness, etc) but evolution does seriously undermine belief in a man who rose from the dead and grants us eternal life. That is what Creationists are so bent out of shape about.
    Yes I'm sure you're right about death being the issue. But I think it's a bit more involved than you make out. I think it is do with the doctrine of the Fall and the subsequent redemptive effect of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. The traditional doctrine was that death entered the world as a consequence of the Fall (Adam and Eve's Original Sin) and - through the theological symmetry of Atonement - somehow the death of Christ undid the effect of that to permit Man to enjoy everlasting life once more. Clearly that cannot stand if evolution is right.

    But I think most mainstream Christians today see that "death" as spiritual death - a distancing from God - and the Fall itself as an allegorical way to acknowledge Man's sinfulness once he had evolved to the point of being morally aware. (I myself rather like the imagery of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once you know the difference, the weight of moral responsibility descends on your shoulders - and of course you don't always do the right thing.) And there are several different interpretations of the Atonement as well.
    DianeG and samsmoot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    But I think most mainstream Christians today see that "death" as spiritual death - a distancing from God - and the Fall itself as an allegorical way to acknowledge Man's sinfulness once he had evolved to the point of being morally aware. (I myself rather like the imagery of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once you know the difference, the weight of moral responsibility descends on your shoulders - and of course you don't always do the right thing.) And there are several different interpretations of the Atonement as well.
    Agreed, but then I would imagine that those with an allegorical, rather than literal, interpretation of salvation probably aren't the segment of Christians who oppose teaching evolution.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    But I think most mainstream Christians today see that "death" as spiritual death - a distancing from God - and the Fall itself as an allegorical way to acknowledge Man's sinfulness once he had evolved to the point of being morally aware. (I myself rather like the imagery of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once you know the difference, the weight of moral responsibility descends on your shoulders - and of course you don't always do the right thing.) And there are several different interpretations of the Atonement as well.


    Agreed, but then I would imagine that those with an allegorical, rather than literal, interpretation of salvation probably aren't the segment of Christians who oppose teaching evolution.
    Precisely.

    There is superficiality to the way some people assume Christianity and Science are at loggerheads, based on assuming creationism is the major theological view within Christianity, when it is not. Dawkins and co have often seemed to be guilty of this - though I think Dawkins is adopting a more nuanced approach these days.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    There is superficiality to the way some people assume Christianity and Science are at loggerheads, based on assuming creationism is the major theological view within Christianity, when it is not. Dawkins and co have often seemed to be guilty of this - though I think Dawkins is adopting a more nuanced approach these days.
    It might not be the major view, but it is certainly a major one, with somewhere near half of Americans believing in creationism and as part of the doctrines of some of the major denominations, or part of their doctrines which straddle the line such as Roman Catholics that certainly believe in evolution but as a process started by and guided by God particularly for humans.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    There is superficiality to the way some people assume Christianity and Science are at loggerheads, based on assuming creationism is the major theological view within Christianity, when it is not. Dawkins and co have often seemed to be guilty of this - though I think Dawkins is adopting a more nuanced approach these days.
    It might not be the major view, but it is certainly a major one, with somewhere near half of Americans believing in creationism and as part of the doctrines of some of the major denominations, or part of their doctrines which straddle the line such as Roman Catholics that certainly believe in evolution but as a process started by and guided by God particularly for humans.
    That may be true in N America. In Europe we are a bit more enlightened!
    DianeG likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    That may be true in N America. In Europe we are a bit more enlightened!
    Only slightly better. Polls in Spain and England are nearly the same as the US. I'd also expect eastern Europe to have high numbers.
    http://www.britishcouncil.org/darwin...vey-global.pdf

    The Russian Orthodox church is very similar to major religious organizations in the US, trying to get creationism/ID into the school curriculums.
    Russia Church wants end to Darwin school monopoly | Reuters

    And consider that some of the largest denominations only resolve the conflict by the most twisted hybrid thinkings, such as Roman Catholicism, which taught that literal Genesis under threat of excommunication until about 20 years ago, but now accepts evolution except for a bit of tweaking of humans and perhaps to get the process started.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    alternately:
    Creationists ain't really dolts, they just seem that way when they try to "dumb it down" while trying to explain it to anti-theist.
    Somewhat like trying to explain sex and procreation to a child. (45 minutes into the explanation, the child interrupts with the question: "Can I go out and play now?")

    Perspective matters!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    alternately:
    Creationists ain't really dolts, they just seem that way when they try to "dumb it down" while trying to explain it to anti-theist.
    Somewhat like trying to explain sex and procreation to a child. (45 minutes into the explanation, the child interrupts with the question: "Can I go out and play now?")

    Perspective matters!
    Alternately alternately, creationists trying to explain their view point to those who don't subscribe to their beliefs is like my 8 year old cousin trying to explain the important of Pokemon to me. After a few minutes I interrupt with the question, "Can we just out and play now?"
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    That may be true in N America. In Europe we are a bit more enlightened!
    Only slightly better. Polls in Spain and England are nearly the same as the US. I'd also expect eastern Europe to have high numbers.
    http://www.britishcouncil.org/darwin...vey-global.pdf

    The Russian Orthodox church is very similar to major religious organizations in the US, trying to get creationism/ID into the school curriculums.
    Russia Church wants end to Darwin school monopoly | Reuters

    And consider that some of the largest denominations only resolve the conflict by the most twisted hybrid thinkings, such as Roman Catholicism, which taught that literal Genesis under threat of excommunication until about 20 years ago, but now accepts evolution except for a bit of tweaking of humans and perhaps to get the process started.
    I think you and I have been through this nonsense about the Catholic church before. Evolution has been fully compatible with Catholic theology for at least half a century. I know you were taught by some strange backwoodsmen in Canada but believe me, in Europe, where the theology is determined, evolution has been mainstream for ages. Same goes a fortiori for Anglicans and Presbyterians - and a good number of Methodists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    alternately:
    Creationists ain't really dolts, they just seem that way when they try to "dumb it down" while trying to explain it to anti-theist.

    Perspective matters!
    interesting perspective - how do you see it possible to dumb down something flood geology ? it sure looks stupid enough without any need for dumbing down
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    And you ignored the official positions of the Catholic church than as well. I don't wish to recover it, but needless to say, the Catholic church does not fully embrace evolution, it believes God played a direct role in creating humans.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Farnham Royal, Bucks
    Posts
    65
    So I am a dolt then! Fine. I believe that God did create the Universe, the Earth and then created conditions for humans to arise and have consciousness and language. There is no point in hiding my beliefs. However, I would also add the caveat that religious works generally are meant to be read as allegory and not to be literal facts. So what now? How far does this division take us as human beings?
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    So I am a dolt then! Fine.
    clearly you're not a creationist, since you admit yourself that not every word in the bible need to be taken literally
    i thought that the literal inerrancy of the bible's every word was the central tenet of creationism
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    If it wasn't for the fact that one of my best friends is a creationist, I think we could just take them all out permanently and be done with them. We don't usually talk about that subject when we are together, so mostly he's just a regular guy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    So I am a dolt then! Fine. I believe that God did create the Universe, the Earth and then created conditions for humans to arise and have consciousness and language. There is no point in hiding my beliefs. However, I would also add the caveat that religious works generally are meant to be read as allegory and not to be literal facts. So what now? How far does this division take us as human beings?
    Well I think it depends on what you mean by God "creating the conditions" of humans to arise. Any Christian believes God created the universe and the underlying order in it that permits life, including Man, to arise. But that does not entail believing in special supernatural intervention, to suspend the normal order of the universe, in order to create life, or Man.

    The division that is implicit in the OP is between people who accept the evidence of science and accommodate their religious beliefs to it and those who reject the evidence of science when a perceived conflict arises. It is the latter group who are the "dolts" of the OP.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Farnham Royal, Bucks
    Posts
    65
    marnixR - I do believe in an original act of Creation by a unified and unique intelligence. However, after this initial event (Big Bang?), the rest is hazy and I am willing to accept scientific evidence until the point that it suggests that humans do not have a soul, which contradicts religious revelation entirely.

    Well I think it depends on what you mean by God "creating the conditions" of humans to arise. Any Christian believes God created the universe and the underlying order in it that permits life, including Man, to arise. But that does not entail believing in special supernatural intervention, to suspend the normal order of the universe, in order to create life, or Man.
    That is how I would report my belief. God does not break the laws of Physics in my opinion.

    The division that is implicit in the OP is between people who accept the evidence of science and accommodate their religious beliefs to it and those who reject the evidence of science when a perceived conflict arises. It is the latter group who are the "dolts" of the OP.
    What a shame that we call anyone with a certain belief a "dolt". So are other religious groups with different beliefs also dolts because their faith contradicts scientific observations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    marnixR - I do believe in an original act of Creation by a unified and unique intelligence. However, after this initial event (Big Bang?), the rest is hazy and I am willing to accept scientific evidence until the point that it suggests that humans do not have a soul, which contradicts religious revelation entirely.
    Why? Why accept science only where there is a greater measure of certainty? What compels you to plug in the gaps in your knowledge with God?

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    That is how I would report my belief. God does not break the laws of Physics in my opinion.
    God itself defies science.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    What a shame that we call anyone with a certain belief a "dolt". So are other religious groups with different beliefs also dolts because their faith contradicts scientific observations?
    I agree. 'Willfully ignorant' is a more appropriate term.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    marnixR - I do believe in an original act of Creation by a unified and unique intelligence. However, after this initial event (Big Bang?), the rest is hazy and I am willing to accept scientific evidence until the point that it suggests that humans do not have a soul, which contradicts religious revelation entirely.
    In other words you're not actually interested in what science says.
    You'd rather believe fairy tales.
    Why do you believe humans have "souls"?
    Because someone told you?
    jgoti and Bad Robot like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Farnham Royal, Bucks
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post

    Why? Why accept science only where there is a greater measure of certainty? What compels you to plug in the gaps in your knowledge with God?
    SCience does not have all the answers to the question of why humanity finds itself in this particular form of exisatence. Science does not answer how human consciousness arrived at its current stage except to propose hypotheses including epiphenomenalism. Moreover, self-referential thought phrases indicate thought about thought and non-human primates which have been taught sign language seem unable to copy these facets of the human condition. Science cannot answer how human language arose and allowed humans to rise above other animals, write poetry and express innermost thoughts to each other on a Forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    That is how I would report my belief. God does not break the laws of Physics in my opinion.
    God itself defies science.
    The only way we can contradict that proposal is to communicate with the living after death and to explain to the living whether or not the personality, ego, spirit...survives death.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    I am willing to accept scientific evidence until the point that it suggests that humans do not have a soul
    Science doesn't have any evidence that suggests humans don't have souls. No such evidence exists, so science does not pursue this idea. It's also a little disingenuous to accept the parts of science you like and disregard the rest without logic. That's a tactic reserved for intelligent design believers (for whom I reserve a special kind of loathing found deep within the recesses of my darkest thoughts).

    It's important to realize that science does not seek to disprove God. It never has and never will. God is slowly fading from the realm of acceptable answers purely due to the growing knowledge of humankind. We now know how Earth came into existence, where lighting comes from, how babies are created. As we learn, God's role diminishes. Thus far, she hasn't done anything to set the record straight, either.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    SCience does not have all the answers to the question of why humanity finds itself in this particular form of exisatence. Science does not answer how human consciousness arrived at its current stage except to propose hypotheses including epiphenomenalism. Moreover, self-referential thought phrases indicate thought about thought and non-human primates which have been taught sign language seem unable to copy these facets of the human condition. Science cannot answer how human language arose and allowed humans to rise above other animals, write poetry and express innermost thoughts to each other on a Forum.
    My first thought would be, "So?" Science doesn't have all the answers. What's your point?

    Life does not come wrapped up in a tidy little package with simple and neat explanations that even a child could grasp. If you want all the answers without the hard work, science definitely isn't for you.

    My second thought would be that most of what you're asking sounds like it falls within the realm of neuroscience. Are you sure you're not confusing scientific studies you can't understand with scientific studies you don't WANT to understand? I mean, an eagle can spot a rabbit from two miles away and I can't. That means the eagle must have had a gift bestowed upon him by Eagle God.
    Bad Robot and DianeG like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Farnham Royal, Bucks
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    I am willing to accept scientific evidence until the point that it suggests that humans do not have a soul
    Science doesn't have any evidence that suggests humans don't have souls. No such evidence exists, so science does not pursue this idea. It's also a little disingenuous to accept the parts of science you like and disregard the rest without logic. That's a tactic reserved for intelligent design believers (for whom I reserve a special kind of loathing found deep within the recesses of my darkest thoughts).

    It's important to realize that science does not seek to disprove God. It never has and never will. God is slowly fading from the realm of acceptable answers purely due to the growing knowledge of humankind. We now know how Earth came into existence, where lighting comes from, how babies are created. As we learn, God's role diminishes. Thus far, she hasn't done anything to set the record straight, either.
    I am not trying to be disingenuous; I am trying to accommodate Science with religion as a former scientist. I am willing to accept the concept of evolution as a series of events non-contradictory to the Laws of Science. However, religion is based along the idea of the sinful soul that eveolves and corrects itself until it completes its journey intact after death. Most of the realm of religion revolves around the idea of soul as an intact "wholeness" throughout the life of an individual. This is an idea I cannot dispose of as a believer. And, I do admire Intelligent Design theory, I must confess...
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    I am not trying to be disingenuous; I am trying to accommodate Science with religion as a former scientist. I am willing to accept the concept of evolution as a series of events non-contradictory to the Laws of Science. However, religion is based along the idea of the sinful soul that eveolves and corrects itself until it completes its journey intact after death. Most of the realm of religion revolves around the idea of soul as an intact "wholeness" throughout the life of an individual. This is an idea I cannot dispose of as a believer. And, I do admire Intelligent Design theory, I must confess...
    What compels you to accept religious doctrine without support? As a "former scientist" I imagine this would be almost impossible.

    And intelligent design is the greatest anti-intellectual abomination inflicted upon mankind. It makes me twitch just thinking about that bastardization of scientific rigour.
    Dywyddyr and Bad Robot like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    I am trying to accommodate Science with religion as a former scientist.
    Why?

    I am willing to accept the concept of evolution as a series of events non-contradictory to the Laws of Science.
    Whut?

    However, religion is based along the idea of the sinful soul that eveolves and corrects itself until it completes its journey intact after death.
    In other words: woo.

    And, I do admire Intelligent Design theory, I must confess...
    You mean "Intelligent Design Grasp at Straws", surely.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Farnham Royal, Bucks
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    marnixR - I do believe in an original act of Creation by a unified and unique intelligence. However, after this initial event (Big Bang?), the rest is hazy and I am willing to accept scientific evidence until the point that it suggests that humans do not have a soul, which contradicts religious revelation entirely.
    In other words you're not actually interested in what science says.
    You'd rather believe fairy tales.
    Why do you believe humans have "souls"?
    Because someone told you?
    On the contrary, I was a scientist and am very interested in what Science says. However, certain experiences make believers from non-believers and these made me a believer in a soul. Without someone telling me, Fairy tales? What about Dark Energy and Dark Matter? What about the Universe having 11 dimensions? Which scientific processes could prove or disprove those particular narratives?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    Which scientific processes could prove or disprove those particular narratives?
    Dark energy and matter are tested through mathematical models and there are even attempts to indirectly detect such things. Yet, God has no fingerprint on the world. Nothing has ever been found which reasonably suggests God. She can't fit into any mathematical models, she cannot be detected, she cannot be predicted. I would argue that God cannot be evidenced because God IS the absolute absence of evidence. Where there are no explanations, reasons, logical hypotheses...there is God.

    Science doesn't need to "disprove" that which cannot be, even in the smallest possible ways, demonstrated to exist.
    Bad Robot and DianeG like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    On the contrary, I was a scientist
    "Was" apparently being the operative word.

    and am very interested in what Science says.
    Right up until you decide it no longer applies...

    However, certain experiences make believers from non-believers and these made me a believer in a soul.
    And, of course, you looked at these "experiences" scientifically and ruled out all other explanations?
    (Oh wait, what am I saying?)

    Without someone telling me
    Right: because you'd never been exposed to the idea before and came up with that "explanation" all by yourself.

    What about Dark Energy and Dark Matter? What about the Universe having 11 dimensions? Which scientific processes could prove or disprove those particular narratives?
    You ARE aware that they are (possible) explanations for observed phenomena, aren't you?
    They're not made up out whole cloth and issued as diktats from on high.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Farnham Royal, Bucks
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    I am trying to accommodate Science with religion as a former scientist.
    Why?

    I am willing to accept the concept of evolution as a series of events non-contradictory to the Laws of Science.
    Whut?

    However, religion is based along the idea of the sinful soul that eveolves and corrects itself until it completes its journey intact after death.
    In other words: woo.

    And, I do admire Intelligent Design theory, I must confess...
    You mean "Intelligent Design Grasp at Straws", surely.
    OK. Call it what you will. Behe is/was a scientist and came up with, to my doltish and stupid mind, a good series of facts aboout the minimum number of steps that need to take place to detect light which merit debate, after the flagellar disaster. However, the scientific community jumped on the chance to trample this man as a proponent of pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    Behe is/was a scientist and came up with, to my doltish and stupid mind, a good series of facts aboout the minimum number of steps that need to take place to detect light which merit debate, after the flagellar disaster. However, the scientific community jumped on the chance to trample this man as a proponent of pseudoscience.
    Again, WAS being the operative word.
    He gave it up.
    He IS a proponent of pseudoscience, and, as such, deserves all the "trampling" he gets.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Farnham Royal, Bucks
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    Which scientific processes could prove or disprove those particular narratives?
    Dark energy and matter are tested through mathematical models and there are even attempts to indirectly detect such things. Yet, God has no fingerprint on the world. Nothing has ever been found which reasonably suggests God. She can't fit into any mathematical models, she cannot be detected, she cannot be predicted. I would argue that God cannot be evidenced because God IS the absolute absence of evidence. Where there are no explanations, reasons, logical hypotheses...there is God.

    Science doesn't need to "disprove" that which cannot be, even in the smallest possible ways, demonstrated to exist.
    You are correct. Outside of religious narrative, there is no scientific proof of God's existence. It may defy logic but at least half of the Earth seem to believe in God and have a fear of what lies beyond death sufficiently to believe. I cannot contradict you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Farnham Royal, Bucks
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    Behe is/was a scientist and came up with, to my doltish and stupid mind, a good series of facts aboout the minimum number of steps that need to take place to detect light which merit debate, after the flagellar disaster. However, the scientific community jumped on the chance to trample this man as a proponent of pseudoscience.
    Again, WAS being the operative word.
    He gave it up.
    He IS a proponent of pseudoscience, and, as such, deserves all the "trampling" he gets.
    Well you are a current and brilliant scientist and I was a scientist more than 20 years ago, so nothing I say about Science can possibly be correct. But your current knnowledge of the field gives your words an immport that mine could not possibly have. Thank you for your input. If I am right Behe's flagellar model was disproved because flagellar mutations still allowed bacteriall motility. However, he offered a scientific platform and his argument on light detection needs debate before it is dismissed out of hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    Outside of religious narrative, there is no scientific proof of God's existence.
    Very badly phrased.
    It implies that "religious narrative" is scientific proof.

    It may defy logic but at least half of the Earth seem to believe in God and have a fear of what lies beyond death sufficiently to believe.
    Argumentum ad populum. Oh well...
    And then there's the slight problem that most of those can't even agree on what "god" wants, or his nature, or what he's called, or...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    If I am right Behe's flagellar model was disproved because flagellar mutations still allowed bacteriall motility.
    Behe made a claim: irreducible complexity. And was shown to be wrong.

    However, he offered a scientific platform and his argument on light detection needs debate before it is dismissed out of hand.
    Given his record, and agenda, it's likely he's wrong on this.

    But you missed the point: Behe is no longer a scientist because he's a member of the Discovery Institute.
    An organisation that requires its members to sign a document avowing that god indisputably exists: an a priori assumption.
    Science doesn't work on the basis of incontrovertible unsupported claims as a start point.
    Behe now works, regardless of what he did in the past, toward "proving" a pre-formed and fixed supposition.
    Like I said: not a scientist.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmythesaint View Post
    You are correct. Outside of religious narrative, there is no scientific proof of God's existence. It may defy logic but at least half of the Earth seem to believe in God and have a fear of what lies beyond death sufficiently to believe. I cannot contradict you.
    But whose God is the right God? Must be the one with the most believers, right? How many people would be religious if they were not brain washed as children to believe? Fear of death, seems to be one of those survival instincts that all animal species share. But it takes a human brain to come up with a soul that needs saving for the promised after life. The promise of a better after life can be very appealing to many. But seems to be a very poor reason to be religious. My take on that is people want to believe there's something more after death. But really humans are no different than any other animal in that they are born and live their lives within their nature and then they die. Why does there have to be more than that? Or better, why do humans have to believe there is more than the natural cycle of life and death?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    And then there's the slight problem that most of those can't even agree on what "god" wants, or his nature, or what he's called, or...
    Whether there's only one of him or several dozen/thousand ...

    or even whether he's a he and not a she.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. creationists and evolution
    By captaincaveman in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: December 7th, 2017, 08:00 AM
  2. Creationists on this forum...ban them all?
    By gottspieler in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 16th, 2011, 12:09 PM
  3. PhD's and creationists
    By Golkarian in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: February 8th, 2009, 01:20 PM
  4. Creationists and Evolutionists Are Correct
    By williampinn in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: October 20th, 2008, 07:06 PM
  5. Why do people laugh at Creationists?
    By bobby9 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 9th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •