Part 2, an attack on creationism

[McBell]

What does it do to the credibility of a position when its proponents are repeatedly caught lying on its behalf?
If what they were saying were true, would they have to lie to advocate for it?
What about people like Mr. Peanut, who disseminate these lies? Are they just ignorant victims of dishonest propagandists like Kent Hovind? Are they dishonest themselves? Or are they just fundamentally irresponsible?

I have to go with willful ignorance to claim plausible deniability.

 

[Valjean]

Creationism is not an explanation of anything. It is an assertion of agency and nothing more. It answers only "who?" -- not "how"? It posits no mechanism but magic.

Review all serious, peer reviewed articles in the scientific literature of the past twenty years and you'll find plenty of disagrement, but I doubt if you could find a single life scientist questioning the basic premise of evolution.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

If you truly believe that it would be moral for you to slaughter a little baby if God told you to. Do you?

Here's a hypo. I'm a lesbian and an atheist. And to make it worse, I was born a Jew. So, I'm a reprobate, heathen, abominator, right? And get this: I'm not raising my children to worship Yahweh! Now let's say that you have a profound religious experience of some kind, in which God instructs you to kill my children. (Please don't say He wouldn't; I spent a lot of my time establishing that He did. A lot. And don't say that people who have religious experiences are crazy, because your entire belief system is based on just this type of personal revelation. Finally, we already know that you have absolutely no way to evaluate whether such a vision is objectively correct or true.) Do you do it? Would it be right?

I can't imagine I would. God probably wouldn't pick me because I would probably rebel. It is a ridiculous hypo. You may think it is perfectly justified with your opinion of the Bible, but to me it doesn't make sense. God has made his ethics for me perfectly clear and it doesn't include killing babies. I'm not an orthodox Jew.. give me an example when such a violent revelation happened to a Christian.

Also, what is with the "to make it worse, I was born a Jew" comment? I don't consider you a reprobate or abominator! What a strange view you must have of us Christians!

Anyway, I said that "The land I gave you; kill everyone in it/ the land He gave us; we killed everyone in it" is a major OT theme. You accused me of distorting the Bible. I think I have shown that it is, to anyone with any objectivity. If you think not, please show us. I do not (as I have said several times) like to be inaccurate. If I am, please show me how. If not, please withdraw your unfounded accusation.

It is not just that comment, You have plenty of comments of sarcasm, exaggeration and distortion, Here are a few examples:

the Lord and Author of all creation couldn't find anything better to discuss with us than an obscure wrestling rule
-- The Bible is a big book... there must be other things God does in there.

The Bible is just chock full of the silliest nonsense, porn, random violence, inexplicable cruelty, and bizarre commandments.
-- Exaggerated opinions that would be smirked at by any repitable Bibilical scholar.

God commanded his people to slaughter everyone in sight.
-- Everyone in sight? Where does it say that? Does that include each other?

Same God. As I said, Jesus commands infanticide.
-- Jesus is the son, not the father, Quote me where Jesus commanded infanticide.

No, Nick, and you know your response is disingenuous. Because it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't make sense to you.

It wasn't disingenuous. It makes sense to me that I can't know everything about God. According to Christian theology, He only reveals to us what we need to know. Does it make sense to you that you don't know everything about quantum physics, yet you still believe in it?

Perhaps I should elaborate that it is the worldview that makes the most sense to me (that is, if you consider the phrase "make sense to me" means that I know everything there is to it). Remember, the origin of why I am a theist is because atheism doesn't make sense to me. The reason why Christianity make sense it because it explains why pain and suffering exists in the world. To say that I need to understand everything about the Christian God in order to have it make sense (as a worldview) doesn't make sense to me.

The basic premise of the Bible doesn't make sense, so you just don't think about it. It does not make sense that anything that anyone else does has any bearing on my wrong-doing, that I should be punished for something that Adam and Eve did, or that Jesus can redeem me from it. That's just whacko. And that's the heart of the story, isn't it? The idea that I'm guilty because a talking snake persuaded a pre-historic woman to eat the wrong fruit, and the idea that God made a woman pregnant, and her son was killed, which somehow expiates my guilt. Those are very ancient, very primitive ideas. Modern, rational ethics says that I'm responsible for my sins and the good I do, that I must make reparations, I must atone, and those whom I harm may forgive me.

Christian ethics also say that I am responsible for my sins and the good I do.

Anyway, your description is a sarcastic view of Christian theology, if you ask me. Let me explain how I look at it.

Many sins can cripple another person, either physically or mentally. A person who was heavily abused as a child will statistically be more likely to commit crimes and act unethically. Is he responsible for his behavior? Yes, of course. But also we must recognize we can be affected by other people's sins in negative ways.

Such is the crime of Satan. He slid his sword deep into humanity, and like the abused child, we are stuck will dealing with the effects. This world is not a paradise, but rather a broken world.

God has a plan to fix it. The virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection are all important, but the core of the issue is what is in our heart. He cannot let us into His home unless we accept Him as our authority. As an analogy, consider a dog owner (I don't know about you but I love dogs). All dogs are bad every once in a while, but as long as the owner knows the dog accepts Him as the master, he will forgive the dog. But if the dog doesn't accept the owner as a master, and acts as he pleases with no recognition of the owner's authority, that dog will find he will not be living in the owner's house.

But if you come to believe that God commands you to do it, now it's right for you too, right? Evil things are good, if God commands them, which he does regularly throughout his brief appearance in the Bible.

Believe me, your objection make sense to me from an atheist perspective. It is awful to have people commit atrocities and then claim "well God told me to do it!" if there is no God.

But,you need to explain to me why God doesn't have this authority to make your argument complete. Otherwise, it has a big hole. We are not talking about people committing murder on their own volition.

If you don't explain why God shouldn't have that authority (if He exists), then my belief is morally sound taken the assumption that God exists.

I explained it to you, and here it is again, short short version:
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. Much more detail would need a separate thread.

I would be happy if you started a new thread.

Annoying isn't it, those unsubstantiated assertions? Of course I don't know this; it's only my belief or opinion. However, assuming what you are trying to prove is no way to win an argument.

I am just happy we both believe in faith and the importance of intuition!

Btw, Nick, what about people of other religious faiths? Is genocide moral when their God commands it? Because we know that you have no way to distinguish which God is real. So if Allah (pbuh) commands genocide, or His followers command Him to, is it moral for them to commit it? Or does your moral license only apply to Christians?

I don't believe in their faiths, like you, and therefore do not think their commands from God are authentic.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not talking about illness or natural evil. I'm talking about a God who commands His followers to commit evil.

What is the difference? If there is a plague, earthquake, typhoon, or wide-spread starvation, it is allowed by God. What difference does it make what device He uses?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

for Nick Soapdish:
Here is a post from penguino, a Hindu, in response to the question, "How do you know your holy book is from God?

So is Penguino right? Is his holy book from God? If not, how can you tell him otherwise, since it makes sense to him--or her?

I have a lot of appreciation of Hinduism, particularly Hindu metaphysics. I think they have some cool concepts.

But for me the Bible, as a guide to life, rings true.

 

[camanintx]

I have a lot of appreciation of Hinduism, particularly Hindu metaphysics. I think they have some cool concepts.

But for me the Bible, as a guide to life, rings true.

I'm sure people used to believe that the sun circled the Earth because it "rang true" with them too.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Creationism is not an explanation of anything. It is an assertion of agency and nothing more. It answers only "who?" -- not "how"? It posits no mechanism but magic.

Review all serious, peer reviewed articles in the scientific literature of the past twenty years and you'll find plenty of disagrement, but I doubt if you could find a single life scientist questioning the basic premise of evolution.

Here is a list of scientists disenting the PBS series on Evolution. Not sure how well the series kept to the mainstream evolutionary theory.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I'm sure people used to believe that the sun circled the Earth because it "rang true" with them too.

Are you an atheist because "it rings true" to you, or do actually know where God lives and checked and saw He wasn't there?

 

[Smoke]

Here is a list of scientists disenting the PBS series on Evolution. Not sure how well the series kept to the mainstream evolutionary theory.

Here is a much longer list, of scientists named Steve who agree with the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
​

Project Steve is a humorous parody of such lists as the one you link to.

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!​

 

[Smoke]

Are you an atheist because "it rings true" to you, or do actually know where God lives and checked and saw He wasn't there?

Interesting idea, that you have to know where God lives to be an honest atheist.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is a list of scientists disenting the PBS series on Evolution. Not sure how well the series kept to the mainstream evolutionary theory.

It's not a list of scientists, and they don't reject evolution. It's a list of academics, some of them scientists, some of them engineers or pharmacists, who encourage careful examination of the evidence. Heck, so do I; that doesn't mean I reject the theory. And please explain to me how holding a Ph.D. in Exercise Physiology, Applied Mathematics or Electrical Engineering makes me any more qualified to have an opinion on a Biological theory than a certificate in plumbing? The fact is that >99% of Biologists accept ToE, and making bogus lists for propaganda purposes isn't going to change that. Now, if you take all the world's scientists, engineers, pharamacists, kineseologists and everything else appearing on this list, what percentage do you think this list makes of that group, .0001%? You have to give it to DI, though. They're lousy scientists and terrible lawyers, but they're good propagandists. They fooled you.

 

[camanintx]

Are you an atheist because "it rings true" to you, or do actually know where God lives and checked and saw He wasn't there?

I am an atheist because no one has presented a logically consistent definition of God that corresponds with the evidence around us.

 

[rocketman]

I am an atheist because no one has presented a logically consistent definition of God that corresponds with the evidence around us.

Is that all it would take for you? Surely some kind of spiritual encounter or connection would also be required.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is not a position arrived at by careful research, it is the default position. It is positive assertions of fact that need supporting data.

Look at it this way. There are two ways of approaching knowledge:

1. Believe in everything -- unicorns, Zeus, Christian Science, faeries, creationism, little green men, phlogiston, Zoroastrianism, evolution, Presbyterianism, Ayurveda, Piltdown man, &c, &c, &c...-- and drop each belief as you amass enough hard data to discount it.

2. Start with no beliefs and accept various phenomena and facts as supporting evidence presents itself.

Obviously the 1st approach would be hopelessly unwieldy. We'd never weed out enough competing views to form any coherent view of things.
The 2nd approach is how people, for the most part, actually do things. We're born blank slates and build a world-view as encounter each new thing or idea.

The position that an atheist would accept the existence of God, (Poseidon, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, & al) until there were proof to the contrary is absurd. It's based on the "believe everything" premise.

An atheist believes in what there is evidence of. He does not accept the Tooth Faerie or Jehovah till there is some evidence of their existence.
Thus, Atheism and A-Tooth-Faerieism are the logical default positions. It is Religion that begs evidence.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Here is a much longer list, of scientists named Steve who agree with the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
​

Project Steve is a humorous parody of such lists as the one you link to.

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!​

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there is strong support for evolution, but what other scientific theory has these lists? Are all of the scientists on the list religiously motivated?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Interesting idea, that you have to know where God lives to be an honest atheist.

Perhaps you forgot to trigger your abstract thinking apparatus.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are not saying, "we don't know if God exists", or there is no reliable evidence to support God. You are making a stand that there is no God. Which of course, is based on "what rings true to you" unless you have strong evidence for the non-existence of God. The where God lives is making a statement about the opportunity for such evidence.

Beware of the fallacy Appeal to Ignorance that follows the whole "Burden of Proof" thing.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

It's not a list of scientists, and they don't reject evolution. It's a list of academics, some of them scientists, some of them engineers or pharmacists, who encourage careful examination of the evidence. Heck, so do I; that doesn't mean I reject the theory. And please explain to me how holding a Ph.D. in Exercise Physiology, Applied Mathematics or Electrical Engineering makes me any more qualified to have an opinion on a Biological theory than a certificate in plumbing? The fact is that >99% of Biologists accept ToE, and making bogus lists for propaganda purposes isn't going to change that. Now, if you take all the world's scientists, engineers, pharamacists, kineseologists and everything else appearing on this list, what percentage do you think this list makes of that group, .0001%? You have to give it to DI, though. They're lousy scientists and terrible lawyers, but they're good propagandists. They fooled you.

You are clearly misunderstanding the point of my post. Seyorni made the claim that we could not find a single life scientists that stood against ToE. I was just countering his point. To say they "fooled" me just tells me I am not clearly stating my argument, you need to pay more attention to the arguments being made, or a combination of the two.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I am an atheist because no one has presented a logically consistent definition of God that corresponds with the evidence around us.

Wouldn't that just make you agnostic? What "evidence" do you have against God to make a claim that there is no God?

 

[camanintx]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there is strong support for evolution, but what other scientific theory has these lists? Are all of the scientists on the list religiously motivated?

What other scientific theory is so unjustly derided and attacked?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Atheism is not a position arrived at by careful research, it is the default position. It is positive assertions of fact that need supporting data.

Look at it this way. There are two ways of approaching knowledge:

1. Believe in everything -- unicorns, Zeus, Christian Science, faeries, creationism, little green men, phlogiston, Zoroastrianism, evolution, Presbyterianism, Ayurveda, Piltdown man, &c, &c, &c...-- and drop each belief as you amass enough hard data to discount it.

2. Start with no beliefs and accept various phenomena and facts as supporting evidence presents itself.

Obviously the 1st approach would be hopelessly unwieldy. We'd never weed out enough competing views to form any coherent view of things.
The 2nd approach is how people, for the most part, actually do things. We're born blank slates and build a world-view as encounter each new thing or idea.

The position that an atheist would accept the existence of God, (Poseidon, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, & al) until there were proof to the contrary is absurd. It's based on the "believe everything" premise.

An atheist believes in what there is evidence of. He does not accept the Tooth Faerie or Jehovah till there is some evidence of their existence.
Thus, Atheism and A-Tooth-Faerieism are the logical default positions. It is Religion that begs evidence.

Sorry my friend, that is a fallacy known as Appeal to Ignorance. Thank God He gave us common sense and intuition so we didn't believe everything in approach (1). I think my 5 year old is wise enough not to believe in flying spaghetti monsters.

Atheism, if not simply agnosticism, it is a statement about the existence of God. What basis does the atheist separate himself from the agnostic?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

What other scientific theory is so unjustly derided and attacked?

None I doubt!

Does that mean that evolution is a weak theory, or does it mean that creationists are on the attack because they are threatened? Admittedly, it is probably more the second.

Just so you know my position, I tend to believe in evolution, just doubtful about the naturalistic interpretation of it. To me the probabilities of abiogenesis, not to mention some of the transitional states of evolving species are so improbable, it makes the inclusion of divine creativity fit nicely.