Scientists and Clerics Agree: Keep Creationism out of Schools

[tumbleweed41]

For RedOne...

Atheism=/=Evolution

just as...

Theism=/=Creationism

 

[RedOne77]

When discussing/debating evolution I will happily concede the existence of “God” (for the sake of argument). If it really were about an atheistic worldview why would I do that?

I'm not saying that is my view of the debate, but the main creationist view of it. I think many naive evolutionists see this as a purely scientific debate, it isn't, at least on the creationist side. And until evolutionists see that you will not get very far with the average creationist. There's a reason why almost no one switches sides.

Are you familiar with Ken Miller? Please check out the link in my signature. (“Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth R. Miller. For anyone interested in Creation/Evolution) He is a Roman Catholic who argues that the evidence of evolution is not only compatible with his belief in “God” but actually reinforces his faith. Again if evolution were about an atheistic worldview why would he argue this?

I am familiar with Ken Miller, again I don't deny TEs, but TE is not for me. I'm glad Miller kept his faith, I don't know how evolution increased it, but doing so he has cherry picked what he wants out of the faith. It is really all, or nothing.

If it is about differing worldviews then it is about a worldview that accepts the empirical evidence and values an honest search for the truth, and on the other side a worldview that rejects evidence and values dogma. It is rationality versus irrationality.

Sub sole nihil novi est.

There are Theists who accept evolution and there are Atheists who accept evolution. In fact there are many more Theists who accept evolution then there are Atheists. Saying that this is about Atheism makes absolutely no sense. There are Christians who accept evolution, Jews who accept evolution, Muslims who accept evolution, as well as Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists and so on.

And there are some atheists who accept intelligent design, they're rare but out there. I know many theists accept evolution, but I can't help but feel they cherry pick their way to their conclusion.

I understand some people may want to promote creationism as a way to promote their own particular view of their own particular religion. And this may be what it is about for you, but it is not what it is about for me, and it is not what it is about for most people.

I know a few atheists who want to de-convert people via the debate, so it is not completely unheard of. I'm not here to solely promote my religion (it is more of something in the background), but to provide support for other creationists, but they seem to be in very low numbers here.

You mentioned Miller, while we disagree, at least he does understand that it isn't a purely scientific debate going on. Again it is a youtube video, he is giving a lecture on ID, if I find it I'll post it.

 

[sonofskeptish]

There's a reason why almost no one switches sides

Yeah, it's called conflicting world views...

One group approaches things with a faith-fueled set of beliefs, and the other with an evidence-based set of beliefs.

One group defaults to supernatural explanations for things unknown, while the other relies on evidence and natural explanations.

One group has a strong need for a creator which overrides everything else, the other depends on rational, critical thinking.

One group undermines common scientific knowledge, the other embraces it.

Welcome to RF.

 

[Riverwolf]

And there are some atheists who accept intelligent design, they're rare but out there. I know many theists accept evolution, but I can't help but feel they cherry pick their way to their conclusion.

Well, seeing as cherry picking is what led to canonization of the various Biblical canons, I fail to see how cherry picking from the Bible to suit personal needs is inappropriate.

I'm a theist who accepts evolution. (Pantheist, to be exact.) It's perfectly compatible, as faith and religion are not found in Scriptures; those are just guidebooks in my opinion.

 

[RedOne77]

Well, seeing as cherry picking is what led to canonization of the various Biblical canons, I fail to see how cherry picking from the Bible to suit personal needs is inappropriate.

I'm a theist who accepts evolution. (Pantheist, to be exact.) It's perfectly compatible, as faith and religion are not found in Scriptures; those are just guidebooks in my opinion.

Christianity was largely uniform in the first two centuries. What was rejected as canon were heresies that crept up over the years.

I should have been more clear, but I was talking about Christians when I said theists, and you could extend it to the Abrahamic faiths, I didn't mean it as an umbrella term for all theists.

 

[Riverwolf]

Christianity was largely uniform in the first two centuries. What was rejected as canon were heresies that crept up over the years.

Whether those "heresies" crept up over the years or there from the beginning is up for debate, and not the topic at hand.

However, you can't deny that there are several different canons for the Bible, not just the Protestant and Catholic ones.

(Besides, how is the Shepherd of Hermas heresy? I don't think it's a gnostic text.)

I should have been more clear, but I was talking about Christians when I said theists, and you could extend it to the Abrahamic faiths, I didn't mean it as an umbrella term for all theists.

That's okay. (I still disagree, but since I'm not a follower of Abrahamic faiths...)

 

[RedOne77]

Whether those "heresies" crept up over the years or there from the beginning is up for debate, and not the topic at hand.

However, you can't deny that there are several different canons for the Bible, not just the Protestant and Catholic ones.

(Besides, how is the Shepherd of Hermas heresy? I don't think it's a gnostic text.)

That's okay. (I still disagree, but since I'm not a follower of Abrahamic faiths...)

I'm not familiar with the Shepherd of Hermas. In either case, perhaps heresy is too strong a word to apply it across the spectrum of rejected canon. An example is the Catholic Bible, it has books in it that the Protestants don't. Yet I wouldn't call those extra books flat out heresy, rather they are just not necessary for Christian doctrine.

 

[ShakeZula]

I'll concede as quantum mechanics is not something I'm comfortable debating. I'm fine talking about astronomy in general, just QM is something I've never looked up or had in school. From what I understand QM creating things out of nothing has to do with potential energy, and possibly dark energy. I see God as sustaining the innate, intrinsic properties of the QM field, so ultimately it all comes from God, not 'nothing'.

But the problem is that all of your holy scriptures never mention anything about any of it. According to the Bible, it was all made in 6 days, six to ten thousand years ago. This thing that you're doing here is called moving the goal posts or, more colloquially, god of the gaps. Any unexplainable aspect of the universe is given over to god. Even though a hundred years ago, when no one had even dreamt up the possibility of quantum fields, it never would have occurred to you or any other person. That's the problem with the kind of thinking you've adopted. 500 years ago, god was the storm, tornado, the earthquake (still is to some people) but now we know how such things are caused. Eventually you're going to run out of gaps.

I do not claim victory, not every assertion equates to a 'claimed victory'. Do you just have one archetype of a creationist (From what I gather consists of someone making a claim, putting their hands over their ears and saying "lalalala, victory is mine".) then just project that one archetype onto every creationist you ever meet? Then insult their intelligence in a pompous, blatant manner? Implying brain damage or mental retardation? While I can't get this book right now, when I have time in hopefully a week or so I'll look into it.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm a little blunt or dismissive but whether or not you want to think of yourself of a creationist archetype, at the very least you share some of the traits. Allow me to demonstrate.

A couple of days ago, you said this:

Right, that's why people like Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins advocate our universe coming from nothing and proclaim that the facts support them.

There's no need to rehash why you were wrong and you've already admitted as such in this thread. You simply didn't know enough about quantum mechanics to truly gasp the debate. This is perfectly understandable. I barely get it myself. A physicist I ain't. But it's not your lack of knowledge in a given area that causes you to resemble the archetype, it's the manner in which you style your lack of knowledge on a given subject.

You made a declarative statement about a topic you knew next to nothing about. You didn't know enough about the topic to understand what Krauss meant when he said nothing but you were so adamant on upholding your dogma that you seized on the apparent contradiction as vindication of the illogic or religious nature of science. (Or something else entirely, I don't really know what your thinking was when you first heard this and thought it contradicted the idea of a non-theistic creation. I suppose it doesn't really matter.)

A more rational-minded person would have, instead of asserting something they didn't really understand, perhaps posed it in the form of a question. Said something like "I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure this physicist named Krauss said that the Universe came from nothing and Dawkins seemed to agree with him. That's a bit of a problem for your side if it's true..." Or any number of other variations. But that's not what you did. You did what creationists do all the time which is misunderstand and misrepresent science and used it to try support your position. Granted, creationists aren't the only ones guilty of such sloppy thinking, but we're in a creationist debate, so that's what we have to work with.

Perhaps you are of a different breed when it comes to this sort of thing. A more liberalized Christian who is prepared to offer up more and more of the Bible to the idea of it just being metaphor as science continues it's inevitable encroachment in to it's territory. Even if that's the case, you're still holding on to some of that archetype thinking.

Come on now. I didn't start the topic on cosmology, I was responding to another post. While cosmology is irrelevant to the validity of biological theories (for the most part), it is part of the Evo vs. Creo debate, with evolution being at the center of attention. Usually evolutionists try to contain the debate only within the parameters of evolution, but the whole debate is so much more. That is why the fields of chemical evolution and cosmology come into play.

Evolutionary biology has absolutely nothing to say on the origin of the universe. Evolution only deals with the how life changes after the universe was already created.

Now, if I've offended you, it was not intentional. Unfortunately that's just how I come across. However, for future reference, if I ever insult you wrongly, I will apologize.

-S-

 

[ShakeZula]

Yes this has been my experience. Often the anti-evolution side will want to debate anything from abiogenesis and cosmology to morality and religion. And I think they do this for one of two reasons. Either they know nothing about Evolution and so can’t intelligently discuss the topic, or they actually do know that the evidence in favour of evolution is absolutely overwhelming and therefore want to divert attention away from it.

I agree that when it comes to this debate about evolution the two sides are often debating completely different things. The evolution side is debating evolution, the anti-evolution side is debating ???? It is really frustrating to have a debate when both sides don’t even agree with what the debate is. For my part I want to say that the evolution debate is not about religion, it is not about atheism, it is not about morality, it is not about abiogenesis, it is not about the origin of the universe. The evolution debate is about evolution.

What is the evolution debate about from your perspective?

It seems to me that creationists will jump disciplines during an evolutionary debate in order to gain points with the uneducated. As they begin to loose ground in the evolutionary discussion they can swing it over to cosmology (for example) and pepper the poor biologist with questions he or she can't answer because that's simply not their area. It's like asking your hair stylist to design you an office building. Then the creationist can smile knowingly to the crowd, chuckle and declare that obviously this "theory" is nothing but hocus-pocus and a different kind of faith because they can't even answer simple questions about how we got here in the first place.

It's nothing but a strawman argument.

-S-

 

[ShakeZula]

If you truly believe the debate to be on evolution only then I think you are deceiving yourself. It is truly about two different world views. For many creationists it is about our world view versus yours. It is atheism vs. creationism, and evolution is the main field of play. That is why creationists not only involve evolution, but chemical evolution and cosmology along with religion, philosophy and morality. For us it is everything in one; when you support evolution your not just supporting evolution, you are attacking (unknowingly) creationism as a whole and people will fight back with everything they have.

Ahh... I see you are the archetype after all. I won't touch on atheism/evolution vs. creationism since that's already been done. No need to rehash, yes?

But here's the flaw in your thinking. If the bible were really true then evidence would support such a thing. Children wouldn't need to be indoctrinated and brainwashed in to their faith, they would merely be given a slide rule, a microscope and some litmus paper and told to go find the truth.

Lemme ask you something. Do you question, say, the theory of relativity with the same fervor that you question and argue against the theory of evolution? Or do you question newtonian physics? Do you question the laws of thermodynamics? Do you question whether fire will burn you or not? Gravity? The strong and weak nuclear forces? Chemistry? Geometry?

No. You don't. (I'm actually guessing you're a fan of Newtonian physics since you mentioned a knowledge of astronomy and we owe a lot to Newton in that arena.) You should ask yourself why and think very hard about the answer. Because when you question, argue and deliberately disbelieve in evolution, without thinking about it you are also questioning, arguing and deliberately disbelieving in every scientific bit of knowledge we've obtained over the last 500 years, from astrophysics to navel lint.

But Shake, you may be saying, that doesn't make any sense! Of course Gravity is true, it's gravity!

But did you know that we know practically nothing about gravity? We've no clue about why gravity works. We know that it does and we can study it's effects, but as to the why of gravity? Not the slightest idea. Some theories, but even now it remains frustratingly elusive. We've learned more about evolution in the last 150 years than we've learned about gravity since Newton got smacked on the head with a wayward piece of fruit.

However, that's neither here nor there. Our knowledge about the nature of gravity is irrelevant, I'm just pontificating now. Forgive me, it's a failing of mine.

When you question, argue against and deliberately disbelieve in evolution what you're actually doing is arguing against the scientific method. And the scientific method is what makes your modern life work. Without it, we'd still be living in sod and timber houses, going to town on horse drawn carts and dying from a splinters in our big toes. What you're essentially doing is saying that the scientific method is true in every other place that doesn't contradict the bible, but in case of Evolution, it's complete bollocks.

Does that make sense to you? Is that the action of a rational and sane individual?

-S-

 

[ShakeZula]

Christianity was largely uniform in the first two centuries. What was rejected as canon were heresies that crept up over the years.

What are you smoking? Largely uniform? Were you aware the the current bible you no doubt have somewhere nearby was decided by nothing more than a show of hands? Read just about anything by Bart D. Ehrman.

-S-

 

[ShakeZula]

And there are some atheists who accept intelligent design, they're rare but out there.

This is impossible. You're either lying to salvage your point or the atheists you read about or met who said they accepted intelligent design were lying or didn't know what being an atheist actually means.

-S-

 

[Gabethewiking]

Ahh... I see you are the archetype after all. I won't touch on atheism/evolution vs. creationism since that's already been done. No need to rehash, yes?

But here's the flaw in your thinking. If the bible were really true then evidence would support such a thing. Children wouldn't need to be indoctrinated and brainwashed in to their faith, they would merely be given a slide rule, a microscope and some litmus paper and told to go find the truth.

Lemme ask you something. Do you question, say, the theory of relativity with the same fervor that you question and argue against the theory of evolution? Or do you question newtonian physics? Do you question the laws of thermodynamics? Do you question whether fire will burn you or not? Gravity? The strong and weak nuclear forces? Chemistry? Geometry?

No. You don't. (I'm actually guessing you're a fan of Newtonian physics since you mentioned a knowledge of astronomy and we owe a lot to Newton in that arena.) You should ask yourself why and think very hard about the answer. Because when you question, argue and deliberately disbelieve in evolution, without thinking about it you are also questioning, arguing and deliberately disbelieving in every scientific bit of knowledge we've obtained over the last 500 years, from astrophysics to navel lint.

But Shake, you may be saying, that doesn't make any sense! Of course Gravity is true, it's gravity!

But did you know that we know practically nothing about gravity? We've no clue about why gravity works. We know that it does and we can study it's effects, but as to the why of gravity? Not the slightest idea. Some theories, but even now it remains frustratingly elusive. We've learned more about evolution in the last 150 years than we've learned about gravity since Newton got smacked on the head with a wayward piece of fruit.

However, that's neither here nor there. Our knowledge about the nature of gravity is irrelevant, I'm just pontificating now. Forgive me, it's a failing of mine.

When you question, argue against and deliberately disbelieve in evolution what you're actually doing is arguing against the scientific method. And the scientific method is what makes your modern life work. Without it, we'd still be living in sod and timber houses, going to town on horse drawn carts and dying from a splinters in our big toes. What you're essentially doing is saying that the scientific method is true in every other place that doesn't contradict the bible, but in case of Evolution, it's complete bollocks.

Does that make sense to you? Is that the action of a rational and sane individual?

-S-

NO IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE !!!​

Erh.. Sorry, got so excited reading your post... Very good, hope he actually reads it.
I have been to Busan but never Pohang, which one is the better?

 

[ShakeZula]

I don't understand it either. Could you explain it again, as to a small child? Thanks.

Unfortunately I can't. My knowledge of quantum mechanics is very limited. I understand enough to get the concept, but trying to explain it is like trying to explain obscenity. I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it. To paraphrase a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

However, I don't want to leave you empty-handed. For all those interested, check out this Nova series.

NOVA | The Elegant Universe | Watch the Program | PBS

-S-

 

[ShakeZula]

NO IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE !!!​

Erh.. Sorry, got so excited reading your post... Very good, hope he actually reads it.
I have been to Busan but never Pohang, which one is the better?

Military? Navy?

I've been to Busan a couple of times, it's a nice place. Pohang is about an hour east. Much smaller, a lot fewer western amenities. But cost of living is lower. If you like city life, it's Busan all the way.

-S-

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not familiar with the Shepherd of Hermas. In either case, perhaps heresy is too strong a word to apply it across the spectrum of rejected canon. An example is the Catholic Bible, it has books in it that the Protestants don't. Yet I wouldn't call those extra books flat out heresy, rather they are just not necessary for Christian doctrine.

Catholics would disagree. (And have you read them, so as to have a firm foundation to believe that they aren't necessary?) So would Jews who follow the Septuagint Bible, which contains the apocryphal books, and some others, as well.

The point is, cherry picking was the method used to decide what goes into the canon and what is left out. Therefore, I fail to see how cherry picking from the established canon is such a bad thing. What I've read of the Biblical canon doesn't really lend itself well to the "all or none" approach.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm not saying that is my view of the debate, but the main creationist view of it. I think many naive evolutionists see this as a purely scientific debate, it isn't, at least on the creationist side. And until evolutionists see that you will not get very far with the average creationist. There's a reason why almost no one switches sides.

I understand that and that is why I am perfectly willing to concede the existence of “God” for the purpose of these kind of debates. Also you should understand that I have no intention of trying to convince anyone that the theory of evolution is “true”. What I try to convince people is that the theory of evolution is overwhelming supported by mountains of scientific evidence from a wide range of scientific disciplines. Then the choice is yours. You can either accept the conclusion of science or reject the conclusions of science. If you choose to maintain an irrational dogmatic position in spite of overwhelming evidence then there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to change that. All I can do is point out to you that you have chosen to maintain an irrational dogmatic position in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence.

And there are some atheists who accept intelligent design, they're rare but out there. I know many theists accept evolution, but I can't help but feel they cherry pick their way to their conclusion.

Yeah, I think I have heard of that guy . I don’t claim that all atheists are rational.

But if I understand you the form of creationism that you propose is that based on your specific interpretation of the Bible. Certainly it is not possible for anyone other than a Christian, and a fundamentalist Christian at that to accept your version of creationism.

I know a few atheists who want to de-convert people via the debate, so it is not completely unheard of. I'm not here to solely promote my religion (it is more of something in the background), but to provide support for other creationists, but they seem to be in very low numbers here.

Absolutely, and I want to tell you that when I encounter an Atheist who misuses science to support what is a metaphysical non-scientific position I am the first to jump down their throats. I think it is absolutely tragic when people are told that they must reject science in order to have faith in “God”. I don’t want to see anyone think they must deny themselves the wonder of science, regardless of their religion.

I am not an “evangelical atheists”, I personally am not interested at all in converting (or de-converting) people. I respect the right of people to try to promote atheism just as I respect the right of people to promote religion, just as long as they don’t misuse science to do so. And I have seen both sides do this.

I am actually glad you are here and I hope that we will see from you some good evidence or arguments either in favour of your version of creationism or against the theory of evolution. I realise you are still new and haven’t had to much time, but when I look at your posts it seems that you have yet to even attempt to provide any evidence or arguments in support of your position. I await this with great anticipation.


As for Miller, I don’t think it is cherry picking simply to have a different interpretation of scripture than you do. Ken Miller’s position that Genesis is an allegorical story that contains real truths that are inspired by “God” is perfectly logical and consistent. And even though I don’t agree that theses things are true or inspired by “God” it is still an opinion that I can respect. On the other hand to interpret these scriptures in such a way as to contradict obvious reality is a position that I cannot respect. That does not mean I don’t respect the people who hold such a position, simply that I cannot respect the position.



And I think this is the link to video you are referring to.
[youtube]Ohd5uqzlwsU[/youtube]
The Collapse of Intelligent Design.

 

[Alceste]

If you truly believe the debate to be on evolution only then I think you are deceiving yourself. It is truly about two different world views. For many creationists it is about our world view versus yours. It is atheism vs. creationism, and evolution is the main field of play. That is why creationists not only involve evolution, but chemical evolution and cosmology along with religion, philosophy and morality. For us it is everything in one; when you support evolution your not just supporting evolution, you are attacking (unknowingly) creationism as a whole and people will fight back with everything they have.

Don't be ridiculous. Atheists make up a TINY fraction of the population. We're no competition at all for religious points of view. Evolution is embraced by people of every religion - atheism is irrelevant to whether or not one can accept it. It's embraced because it is demonstrably true. All reasonable religious people who have had access to education believe it.

 

[Alceste]

Christianity was largely uniform in the first two centuries. What was rejected as canon were heresies that crept up over the years.

I should have been more clear, but I was talking about Christians when I said theists, and you could extend it to the Abrahamic faiths, I didn't mean it as an umbrella term for all theists.

You're still wrong. Both the Pope (Catholicism) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglicanism) have publicly stated they believe in the value of science and do not believe American creationists (that's you) should attempt to undermine science education in schools with Bible stories. Your sect is a TINY, insignificant minority in the big picture of Christianity. The rest of Christianity is telling you to go to the library and stop talking just to hear yourself talk.

 

[sonofskeptish]

You're still wrong. Both the Pope (Catholicism) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglicanism) have publicly stated they believe in the value of science and do not believe American creationists (that's you) should attempt to undermine science education in schools with Bible stories. Your sect is a TINY, insignificant minority in the big picture of Christianity. The rest of Christianity is telling you to go to the library and stop talking just to hear yourself talk.

In England alone, so have...

• The Right Reverend Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford
• The Right Reverend Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St Albans
• The Right Reverend John Oliver, Bishop of Hereford
• The Right Reverend Mark Santer, Bishop of Birmingham
• The Right Reverend Thomas Butler, Bishop of Southwark
• The Right Reverend Kenneth Stevenson, Bishop of Portsmouth
• The Right Reverend Crispian Hollis, Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth

...all of whom signed a joint letter to the prime minister expressing concerns about teaching creationism in public schools. Creationists have been reduced to cult status in most civilized countries except for the US (assume America is classed as civilized)