"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[Subduction Zone]

That is true.

I really do approve of science. It is just that sometimes people make it sound like they are infallible and never have to recant what at one time they said was true.

It is like the science of nutrition (as a very simple example). First they said eggs were good for you, then they said it wasn't and now they say it is again. I never agreed with nutritionists when they said it wasn't good for you.

Often the problem is not with the scientists, but with the reporters covering the story. Nutrition is very easy to screw up. A recommendation of cutting back is often misinterpreted as a total avoidance. Neither extreme is ideal in most cases.

 

[RedDragon94]

And possibly on two counts, namely that these narratives can be interpreted as being allegorical, but also that why should one assume that the authors actually knew what may or may not have happened eons before they lived?

Many theologians believe that many of these accounts were carried orally, possibly for centuries, before submitted to writing, and we well know what can happen within oral traditions as far as historical accuracy is concerned. However, the good news is that these oral traditions can be altered to deal with new situations and new beliefs that may emerge, thus always being relevant to the times.

Still, the story came out the way it did for a reason, correct?

 

[exchemist]

Regarding observed geological formations in what is now know as the scablands.

Following extensive investigation of the area, a geologist named Bretz postulated that the cause was massive, sudden flooding.

J Harlen Bretz - Wikipedia

Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated.​

Creos, in their ignorance of and disdain for science do laugh at things like this. As you said, "science is strengthened, not weakened, by such events."

Aha thanks very much for the links. From the Wiki article, this seems to have been a cause celebre for erosion caused by catastrophic flooding. No wonder creationists have latched onto it.

I suppose that, if they want to ridicule geology they could also point to the initial dismissal of Wegener's continental drift. But they would be missing the point: science has a learning culture, quite unlike that of fundamentalist religion.

 

[exchemist]

That is true.

I really do approve of science. It is just that sometimes people make it sound like they are infallible and never have to recant what at one time they said was true.

It is like the science of nutrition (as a very simple example). First they said eggs were good for you, then they said it wasn't and now they say it is again. I never agreed with nutritionists when they said it wasn't good for you.

Well that is comforting to hear (your view of science, I mean, not the eggs ).

My experience arguing with creationists is that often they seem to try to judge science the way they approach scripture, i.e. as if it purports to contain eternal truths.

Just to emphasise (apologies if this is old stuff to you), science is about models, which are always open to change or improvement. This means that in science, any "truth" is always provisional, not absolute, final or eternal. In fact you will find that the writers of scientific papers never talk in terms of "truth" or "proof" (unless in the context of a mathematical theorem). When they report new evidence in support of a theory, they will say something like such and such an observation is "consistent with" the theory.

But, and here is the key thing, the models of science are founded on reproducible (i.e. as objective as possible) observation, and are tested against observation every time new research is reported. This is what gives us confidence in the models of science. Geology, or evolutionary biology, is not overthrown by one - or even several - errors. The discipline incorporates the new finding, adjusts or changes its model, and moves on.

 

[Audie]

Aha thanks very much for the links. From the Wiki article, this seems to have been a cause celebre for erosion caused by catastrophic flooding. No wonder creationists have latched onto it.

I suppose that, if they want to ridicule geology they could also point to the initial dismissal of Wegener's continental drift. But they would be missing the point: science has a learning culture, quite unlike that of fundamentalist religion.

No wonder creationists have latched onto it!

What do they have to latch on to. No data of their own
to latch on to. So, attack!

Haeckel, Piltodown, Nebraska man are top favs, the
most recent of which is what, 60 yrs ago?

At that, they have to misrepresent the actual events,
in order to (think they) get anything out of them.

The creos make a big deal of "Piltdown" as an example of
science going off the rails, but never mention that
most scientists at the time did not accept it. Dont mention how
little traction "Ne. man" ever got.

Never present evidence that does not fit the conclusion!

science has a learning culture,

It is also a culture of doubt, and show- me. Show me
numbers, show me your work, show me your data.
Show me intellectual integrity.

Religion is about faith. Faith in authority (anathema to science).
Faith despite all evidence. The better you are at that,
the more Faith you show, the more virtuous you are. Look at Job!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aha thanks very much for the links. From the Wiki article, this seems to have been a cause celebre for erosion caused by catastrophic flooding. No wonder creationists have latched onto it.

I suppose that, if they want to ridicule geology they could also point to the initial dismissal of Wegener's continental drift. But they would be missing the point: science has a learning culture, quite unlike that of fundamentalist religion.

And one thing you will find in those articles are why Bretz's claims were not accepted at first. His model required huge floods, more than one which the creationists all seem to get wrong, to explain the features of the Channeled Scablands. He had no explanation at all for the huge amounts of water needed. When one can't explain a key need for one's hypothesis one is apt to get ridiculed in the world of science. When the source of water was found the acceptance of his hypothesis was rather rapid.

That science is willing to change is an obvious plus. It can correct its past errors. The Bible does not have this feature. Instead the best people can do is to reinterpret it. Again and again and again . . . In the sciences hypotheses that are not well supported are not accepted. Again this is a plus. If that was done there would be all sorts of contradicting ideas being bandied about. When an idea is well supported scientists are usually very open to reception of that new idea. In the sciences there are multiple ways to correct errors. How are errors in religious beliefs corrected?

 

[exchemist]

And one thing you will find in those articles are why Bretz's claims were not accepted at first. His model required huge floods, more than one which the creationists all seem to get wrong, to explain the features of the Channeled Scablands. He had no explanation at all for the huge amounts of water needed. When one can't explain a key need for one's hypothesis one is apt to get ridiculed in the world of science. When the source of water was found the acceptance of his hypothesis was rather rapid.

That science is willing to change is an obvious plus. It can correct its past errors. The Bible does not have this feature. Instead the best people can do is to reinterpret it. Again and again and again . . . In the sciences hypotheses that are not well supported are not accepted. Again this is a plus. If that was done there would be all sorts of contradicting ideas being bandied about. When an idea is well supported scientists are usually very open to reception of that new idea. In the sciences there are multiple ways to correct errors. How are errors in religious beliefs corrected?

Sometimes they are corrected by falling out of popularity, or by convincing argument (what I guess we are hoping to achieve with our creationist friends ), and sometimes they are not corrected at all and lead to another branch of the religion. Of course the hard bit is determining what in religion constitutes an "error". There is no judge to whom everyone will agree to defer.

 

[metis]

Still, the story came out the way it did for a reason, correct?

Of course, but the question then becomes what is/are the reason(s)?

 

[Audie]

That is true.

I really do approve of science. It is just that sometimes people make it sound like they are infallible and never have to recant what at one time they said was true.

It is like the science of nutrition (as a very simple example). First they said eggs were good for you, then they said it wasn't and now they say it is again. I never agreed with nutritionists when they said it wasn't good for you.

None of us really care for it when someone acts as if they are infallible,
and will never ever admit to any error, no matter how small.

Unless such a person can be referred for some
psychological treatment, or is in a position of
power / authority, it may be best to just ignore them,
dont you think so?

We see an unfortunate breed of Christian
fundamentalist who cannot be wrong, for lo, God
gives them inerrant power to read the proper meaning
of the bible. And who will never ever admit to the
tiniest error on any matter that seems related.

If you can be depended on, as a Christian and
so forth, to call out those who misrepresent your
faith with infallible sayings / demonstrate inability to
accept any error, then great!

The "infallible" is a person is in a very poor position to
represent anything about science, too. Such an attitude
and behaviour is really the opposite of what science
is and how it works. But of course, you know that.

As you noted with t he topic of nutrition, science, to be
science, has to be able to change.

IF anyone ever said that, say, "eggs are bad for you"
as an infallible fact, such a person is an idiot.
And, of course, was doing a very bad job of representing
whatever research went into the
opinion that too many eggs are not good for certain
people. Which may be true. I dont eat them, so
it is not my direct concern.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of us really care for it when someone acts as if they are infallible,
and will never ever admit to any error, no matter how small.

Unless such a person can be referred for some
psychological treatment, or is in a position of
power / authority, it may be best to just ignore them,
dont you think so?

We see an unfortunate breed of Christian
fundamentalist who cannot be wrong, for lo, God
gives them inerrant power to read the proper meaning
of the bible. And who will never ever admit to the
tiniest error on any matter that seems related.

If you can be depended on, as a Christian and
so forth, to call out those who misrepresent your
faith with infallible sayings / demonstrate inability to
accept any error, then great!

The "infallible" is a person is in a very poor position to
represent anything about science, too. Such an attitude
and behaviour is really the opposite of what science
is and how it works. But of course, you know that.

As you noted with t he topic of nutrition, science, to be
science, has to be able to change.

IF anyone ever said that, say, "eggs are bad for you"
as an infallible fact, such a person is an idiot.
And, of course, was doing a very bad job of representing
whatever research went into the
opinion that too many eggs are not good for certain
people. Which may be true. I dont eat them, so
it is not my direct concern.

When it comes to nutrition I have seen recommendations of lowering the amount of consumption misinterpreted by the popular press as an order to cease consumption far too often.

 

[Audie]

When it comes to nutrition I have seen recommendations of lowering the amount of consumption misinterpreted by the popular press as an order to cease consumption far too often.

Pop press is not the same as "scientists say..infallible".

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So let me see if I got this straight.

First they said it took millions of years to make the canyon.

Then they said, "No, it actually was a massive flood from a glacier" after they heckled the people that said it was a glacier flood.

And now they said it was multiple floods.

Now... which one is right? And we know they are right this time... because?

HahahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHA

Creationist: I don't trust scientists because the keep changing their mind.

Scientist: What would make you trust us?

Creationist: If you changed your mind about evolution.

 

[RedDragon94]

Of course, but the question then becomes what is/are the reason(s)?

We'll find out when we get to the other side I guess.

 

[metis]

We'll find out when we get to the other side I guess.

I've already been there but came back to help people like you here at RF.

 

[RedDragon94]

I've already been there but came back to help people like you here at RF.

Oh, well thanks.

 

[Kenny]

Often the problem is not with the scientists, but with the reporters covering the story. Nutrition is very easy to screw up. A recommendation of cutting back is often misinterpreted as a total avoidance. Neither extreme is ideal in most cases.

Take the prinicple, my friend, and the nutrition as an "easy to screw up" excuse doesn't fly.

 

[Kenny]

Well that is comforting to hear (your view of science, I mean, not the eggs ).

My experience arguing with creationists is that often they seem to try to judge science the way they approach scripture, i.e. as if it purports to contain eternal truths.

Just to emphasise (apologies if this is old stuff to you), science is about models, which are always open to change or improvement. This means that in science, any "truth" is always provisional, not absolute, final or eternal. In fact you will find that the writers of scientific papers never talk in terms of "truth" or "proof" (unless in the context of a mathematical theorem). When they report new evidence in support of a theory, they will say something like such and such an observation is "consistent with" the theory.

But, and here is the key thing, the models of science are founded on reproducible (i.e. as objective as possible) observation, and are tested against observation every time new research is reported. This is what gives us confidence in the models of science. Geology, or evolutionary biology, is not overthrown by one - or even several - errors. The discipline incorporates the new finding, adjusts or changes its model, and moves on.

Can we equally apply that to interpretation of scripture? (open to change or improvement)

 

[Kenny]

None of us really care for it when someone acts as if they are infallible,
and will never ever admit to any error, no matter how small.

Unless such a person can be referred for some
psychological treatment, or is in a position of
power / authority, it may be best to just ignore them,
dont you think so?

We see an unfortunate breed of Christian
fundamentalist who cannot be wrong, for lo, God
gives them inerrant power to read the proper meaning
of the bible. And who will never ever admit to the
tiniest error on any matter that seems related.

If you can be depended on, as a Christian and
so forth, to call out those who misrepresent your
faith with infallible sayings / demonstrate inability to
accept any error, then great!

The "infallible" is a person is in a very poor position to
represent anything about science, too. Such an attitude
and behaviour is really the opposite of what science
is and how it works. But of course, you know that.

As you noted with t he topic of nutrition, science, to be
science, has to be able to change.

IF anyone ever said that, say, "eggs are bad for you"
as an infallible fact, such a person is an idiot.
And, of course, was doing a very bad job of representing
whatever research went into the
opinion that too many eggs are not good for certain
people. Which may be true. I dont eat them, so
it is not my direct concern.

I think "fundamentalist" and "infallible" can be applied to both camps.

 

[Audie]

I think "fundamentalist" and "infallible" can be applied to both camps.

What "two camps" are those?

And

Applied equally?

"Applied to both" might mean .0001% vs 100%

 

[Kenny]

What "two camps" are those?

And

Applied equally?

"Applied to both" might mean .0001% vs 100%

I'm sure, Audie, you can figure it out.

If you must, call it "any camp"