Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a valid and well-presented defense against the Creationist crowd, Troop. Rifleman's obsession with Creationism and the fraudulent Discovery Institute or Creation Research Institute is completely understandable. BUT . . . his inability (or unwillingness) to discriminate between them and their efforts . . . and genuine and valid theistic alternatives entirely consistent with existing scientific explanations . . . THAT is what annoys. He goes out his way to obscure, ignore or pretend not to understand or see the genuine theistc alternatives . . . AS IF there were valid scientific reasons for it.
I understand what you're saying, Mystic. I can't speak for rifleman but what I can say is that I never knew how deeply embedded the Creationist/ID propaganda movements were until just a few years ago. I'd heard about it, read a little about it, but always thought it was confined to small groups of backwoods rednecks. Imagine my surprise when I started reading about polls where over half of Americans don't believe in evolution at all while simultaneously holding the viewpoint that the story of Adam and Eve is an historically accurate documented event. I have to admit, the more people I met on this forum who adhered to such nonsense, and the more I found out how involved these pseudosciences were in the general population... The more I began to subconsciously associate "Christian" with "Pseudoscientist."
I'm not a professional scientist. I don't hold a degree in anything at all much less a branch of science. It's not nearly as personal to me as it probably is to a guy like rifleman who has dedicated a tremendous portion of his life to studying and examining such things...
You can speak for me here. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Let me add that I'm not in principle hostile to creationism or intelligent design. But I don't think these should really be counted as "pure" science, because (as you say) it muddies the garden. In contrast, I would say evolution is science. However, when someone makes the claim (or argument) that evolution shows that there is no God, that should not be counted as science either. And yet there should be a place where such claims can be made and discussed--just because it's not "science" doesn't mean it's worthless or irrational or to be ignored.
You can speak for me here. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Let me add that I'm not in principle hostile to creationism or intelligent design. But I don't think these should really be counted as "pure" science, because (as you say) it muddies the garden. In contrast, I would say evolution is science. However, when someone makes the claim (or argument) that evolution shows that there is no God, that should not be counted as science either. And yet there should be a place where such claims can be made and discussed--just because it's not "science" doesn't mean it's worthless or irrational or to be ignored.
Firstly, Evolution itself doesn't make any attempts to discredit anything.
However, when one examines Evolution and compares it to biblical Creationism/ID, one can plainly see that Evolution disproves that portion of the bible.
Science, in and of itself, onyl seeks knowledge. It doesn't seek to disprove religion.
However, one can utilize scientific facts, like Evolution, dating methods, etc to disprove religion by eliminating any authority in scripture.
Firstly, Evolution itself doesn't make any attempts to discredit anything.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to point out the obvious--but, yes of course, I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
However, when one examines Evolution and compares it to biblical Creationism/ID, one can plainly see that Evolution disproves that portion of the bible.
At best, what is shown is that there is a tension between one way of interpreting Genesis and the theory of evolution. But ID is not necessarily "creationism" (depending on how you define that word).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
Science, in and of itself, onyl seeks knowledge. It doesn't seek to disprove religion.
true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
However, one can utilize scientific facts, like Evolution, dating methods, etc to disprove religion by eliminating any authority in scripture.
Why in the world would you think eliminating authority in scripture would disprove religion? What you mean to say is this: that it will undermine the authority of some interpretations of the Christian Scriptures (though maybe you would like to include reference to Judaic and Islamic Holy books). But you obviously know religion is far more than scripture.
And of course scientific evidences can be used for many purposes. I'm all for people using scientific discoveries for trying to either prove or disprove religious views. All I ask is that you don't confuse such arguments with "science."
Without a doubt people should question whether scientific discoveries are trustworthy. In fact, one of the avenues a solid and well-grounded scientific approach should take is to persistently ask questions and to never be satisfied in totality with the answers we find. This, of course, does not mean that science should lend credibility to any emerging hypothesis under the premise that it's merely "questioning" what we already scientifically know.
One of the things I know rifleman continually pursues his fight against is the idea of Creationism, commonly known as Intelligent Design. We should be well aware through the numerous court trials, the lack of cohesive scientific evidence, empirical review, and their subtle underhanded methods that the leaders of this movement are in it for something far different than the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
A science such as evolution that simply has so much evidence in favor of it - I dare say on a magnitude equal to or greater than a number of other scientific bodies - should not be discredited or have attempts made at discrediting it without asking the same of those who object with what was initially put into it. If that last sentence doesn't make sense, let me clarify:
We have multiple branches of science that all converge in support of the theory of evolution. The geological evidence backs it up where it needs to, the biological evidence backs it up where it needs to, the paleontology backs it up where it needs to, and so on and so forth. Each science that backs up the theory of evolution has had tremendous amounts of effort put into it with rigorous scientific examination and peer review. I should note also that many of these findings, examinations, inquiries and discoveries were made independently of trying to support the theory of evolution.
When people try to argue against evolution (I'm just using this as an example but the spectrum can be broadened to any scientific achievement people argue against) they typically do so in a manner that reminds us of science but does not really encapsulate any true methodology of good, scientific groundwork. For example, the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute often hire scientists to write for them so they can attach 'PhD' or something similar to the article. This makes it appear scientific, professional, perhaps even sufficient as a counter-argument to most people. That is the crux of what I feel is meant when people are labeled backwards, unable to understand, etc... when deciphering these pseudosciences. Some of the articles that get pumped out of places like the Discovery Institute seem very professional, scientific, and well thought out - on the surface. It would take someone with a good body of knowledge of the actual science these places are trying to refute to find the hidden "shape shifting" in the text to realize that what they are refuting are nothing more than strawmen. In many cases, your ordinary and average person can't decipher that for what I suspect are a variety of reasons - but I will only name two:
1. They are already looking for evidence to support their opinion of "Intelligent Design/Creationism" and will unconsciously (but ignorantly) agree with what they are reading without examining it further.
2. They don't have the scientific knowledge of the "base science" to refute it in the first place so they agree with what is comfortable to them. Refer to Number One.
These groups have developed a large number of followings from people who simply just don't understand the actual science, don't want to understand the actual science, or are scared of the actual science. We've seen this not just with evolution but with climate change deniers, miasmists in the 19th century, the holistic and herbal medicine movements, the anti-vaccine crowd, and many others.
If we are to refute (or replace) scientific findings with other scientifically oriented ideas using the same rigorous process than I have no complaints. However, just because someone builds a fancy website, pumps out a few books, and adds a few PhD's to the site doesn't make them any more scientific than putting a spoiler, chrome wheels, and a roll cage in my Honda Fit would make it a race car.
One of the best examples of how currently known science can or should be refuted is how Einstein's Theory of Relativity was proven by the Eddington Expeditions. If you want to talk about a rigorous, trying process that overthrew several hundred years of previously concluded scientific thought than read about that - not how these crackpot pseudoscience facilities are being "condemned" because they are throwing out "valid and justified" scientific "theories."
Nice post GCSTroop. I appreciate your congenial and well considered comments. There's not enough of this sort of thing.
All I want to add is that, while I think science is pretty darn nifty, I guess I don't have the sort of "faith" (sorry to blaspheme by using that word in connection with science) you and others seem to have in science. It reminds me too much of the sort of "faith" people can have in either democracy or capitalism or communism. Trust in the "system" to get us there. That sort of thing. I guess I just think it's healthier to remain a bit skeptical, since human nature has a way of going amok, and systems are known to have "systemic failures" (a phrase one hears in the news these days), especially when people trust in them too much. Having said that, for all its faults, I do like capitalism, democracy and science.
Last thing. I think I'm more aware of what goes on in academia than probably a lot of people. And having multiple degrees, or PhDs, does not make you right. It doesn't make you a better person. It doesn't make you a more honest or less biased scientist. You'll probably find more inflated egos in academia than just about anywhere short of Congress.
Nice post GCSTroop. I appreciate your congenial and well considered comments. There's not enough of this sort of thing.
Thanks, Matrix. Likewise. DM me some time and we'll catch up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
All I want to add is that, while I think science is pretty darn nifty, I guess I don't have the sort of "faith" (sorry to blaspheme by using that word in connection with science) you and others seem to have in science. It reminds me too much of the sort of "faith" people can have in either democracy or capitalism or communism. Trust in the "system" to get us there. That sort of thing. I guess I just think it's healthier to remain a bit skeptical, since human nature has a way of going amok, and systems are known to have "systemic failures" (a phrase one hears in the news these days), especially when people trust in them too much. Having said that, for all its faults, I do like capitalism, democracy and science.
I don't have "faith" in science as much as I trust the methodology of it to lead us in the right direction of the truth (whatever that may be). It's not perfect, I admit, and there are certainly things that we will assume we know now that might get overthrown later. In a lot of ways, that's the beauty of science. It challenges previously held conceptions, ideas, and notions with evidence and that's about the closest we can get to proof, in my opinion.
We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling.
I think this mostly stems from dark, cold, and distant science teachers in school... The persistent droning on and rote memorization of what mitosis and meiosis are and what their differences are is one example. People don't see the beauty behind the theories because the theories are rarely taught in anything but a cold and dark manner. If all I had to reflect on in regards to science was the way my high school teacher taught it, I'd be pretty recalcitrant towards it myself. I'm afraid that's what many people go by when they think of science. In reality, I look at science more as Carl Sagan did when he said:
The values of science and the values of democracy are concordant, in many cases indistinguishable. Science and democracy began - in their civilized incarnations - in the same time and place, Greece in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Science confers power on anyone who takes the trouble to learn it (although too many have been systematically prevented from doing so). Science thrives on, indeed requires, the free exchange of ideas; its values are antithetical to secrecy. Science holds to no special vantage points or privileged positions. Both science and democracy encourage unconventional opinions and vigorous debate. Both demand adequate reason, coherent argument, rigorous standards of evidence and honesty. Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge. It is a bulwark against mysticism, against superstition, against religion misapplied to where it has no business being. If we're true to its values, it can tell us when we're being lied to. It provides a mid-course correction to our mistakes. The more widespread its language, rules, and methods, the better chance we have of preserving what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues had in mind. But democracy can also be subverted more thoroughly through the products of science than any pre-industrial demagogue ever dreamed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
Last thing. I think I'm more aware of what goes on in academia than probably a lot of people. And having multiple degrees, or PhDs, does not make you right. It doesn't make you a better person. It doesn't make you a more honest or less biased scientist. You'll probably find more inflated egos in academia than just about anywhere short of Congress.
I absolutely agree. In fact, there is a certain sense of uppity snobbery that often seems to accompany multiple degrees and PhDs. This isn't true in every case, of course, but it certainly does become aggravating when you encounter it.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to point out the obvious--but, yes of course, I agree.
At best, what is shown is that there is a tension between one way of interpreting Genesis and the theory of evolution. But ID is not necessarily "creationism" (depending on how you define that word).
true.
Why in the world would you think eliminating authority in scripture would disprove religion? What you mean to say is this: that it will undermine the authority of some interpretations of the Christian Scriptures (though maybe you would like to include reference to Judaic and Islamic Holy books). But you obviously know religion is far more than scripture.
And of course scientific evidences can be used for many purposes. I'm all for people using scientific discoveries for trying to either prove or disprove religious views. All I ask is that you don't confuse such arguments with "science."
"Some" intirpritations? Tension?
The bible claims that all animals were created on the same day, claims human beings started with one couple, and attempt to claim the universe and earth was created at the same time and stars after the earth as well, and claims there is enough water on the planet to flood the place.
Feel free to explain how these, all esaily disproved, can be intirprited in any other manner that would allow them to fit into scientific facts known today. And please, no YECer nonsence like hydroplaning continents.
And Intelligent Design is indeed the same thing as Creationism. Only a demiurge could create an entire universe.
ID began life as a theosohpical excercise among the ancient Greek philosophers using their deities as a basis for the debate. It has been recently dusted off by the religious right (which is niether) in a failed attempt to get their religion back into public schools by attempting to assign scientific values to Creationism and pasting the label of "Deisgner" onto Creationism. Of course everyone else knows exactly which Deity is being reference as the Abrahamics refuse to acknowledge other Deity.
Added in Edit...
And everyone on my side of this debate knows eactly what is meant when people say "Evovolution/Science must be taken on faith". It is an attempt, like ID, to level the palying field by claiming that scienceand relgiion are the same.
Like ID, we all know this is false.
The Scientific Principle is a sound science, the manner in which we investigate the known Universe. Nothing is taken on "faith" as everything, ever finding, every test, every hypothesis is examined and re-examined, everything constantly questions. Religion does not do this, and skips almost the entirety of the SCientific Process (including "Intelligent Design") by asking a question and arriving immediatly at the conclusion without question, without expermnetation, without peer review, nothing.
Your post has left me sort of speechless. But here goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
"Some" intirpritations? Tension?
The bible claims that all animals were created on the same day, claims human beings started with one couple, and attempt to claim the universe and earth was created at the same time and stars after the earth as well, and claims there is enough water on the planet to flood the place.
Feel free to explain how these, all esaily disproved, can be intirprited in any other manner that would allow them to fit into scientific facts known today. And please, no YECer nonsence like hydroplaning continents.
I have no interest in getting into Scriptural interpretations, or defending any particular view. I'm not sure why you aren't aware of there being competing interpretations (some "poetic," some "liberal"). Perhaps someone in the Christian forum can help you here.
I don't know what "YEC" means, but I bet it's derogatory, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
And Intelligent Design is indeed the same thing as Creationism. Only a demiurge could create an entire universe.
If that's how you want to define your terms, ok. But you should know that not everyone understands these terms as simply interchangeable. "Creationism" is often associated with a more narrow project, of trying to argue for a "literal" reading of Genesis using scientific evidences and tools, etc. ID is much broader, and is probably better identified with theism than Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
ID began life as a theosohpical . . .
I don't think that's the right word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
. . . excercise among the ancient Greek philosophers using their deities as a basis for the debate. It has been recently dusted off by the religious right (which is niether) in a failed attempt to get their religion back into public schools by attempting to assign scientific values to Creationism and pasting the label of "Deisgner" onto Creationism. Of course everyone else knows exactly which Deity is being reference as the Abrahamics refuse to acknowledge other Deity.
Thanks. I didn't realize it was all so simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
And everyone on my side of this debate knows eactly what is meant when people say "Evovolution/Science must be taken on faith". It is an attempt, like ID, to level the palying field by claiming that scienceand relgiion are the same.
Not really. Even if I weren't a theist I would say the same thing. The point I made about taking science with "faith" has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the limits of reason, the uncertainty inherent in systems, and being skeptical about people's "good intentions." You could say I have a philosophical skepticism about science. But you perceive this as an attack on atheism. You could probably easily agree with me on this, but you're obviously under the impression that doing so will give something away to "the Christian."
But be clear on one thing: I'm not defending "creationism" or attacking evolution.
Even if I weren't a theist I would say the same thing. The point I made about taking science with "faith" has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the limits of reason, the uncertainty inherent in systems, and being skeptical about people's "good intentions." You could say I have a philosophical skepticism about science. But you perceive this as an attack on atheism. You could probably easily agree with me on this, but you're obviously under the impression that doing so will give something away to "the Christian."
But be clear on one thing: I'm not defending "creationism" or attacking evolution.
Axis' obsession with Creationism prevents him from separating ANY NOTION of God or any notion of ID from Creationism. He has a one-note song that is antithetical to God, period. YEC means Young Earth Creationist . . . his favorite foil.
It's all the same thing under different covers -- religious minded people will invent these covers once the old ones got shot down.
Religion does not do any research studies on anything, yet wants to have something to say on everything -- "competing science", "truth" ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
