Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

quote:

---

This I can understand and sympathize with. But that's what happens when the vast majority of the scientific community rejects your model; when no creationist is able to successfully defend their position.

---

The scientific community can reject whatever it pleases.What position does the creationist fail to defend?

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

That creationism passes the requirements necessary to be considered science. I thought I had been clearer about that, sorry.

nearest i can tell, all of them.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never met a creationist who would suggest that religion is science or who would attempt to pass it off as such.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I have, many times, right here on this board.

​

There's also loads of them at places with names like "Answers in Genesis", and the "Institute for Creation Science".

​

In fact, here are several of the relevant bits from AiG's statement of faith which explicitly state that their religion is science:

​

AiG Statement of Faith

​

1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

​

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ?secular? and ?religious?, is rejected.

---

Thanks, Schraffie, you're the best. I forget sometimes the wackos that are out there. Including those that teach that Mary is co-redemptress and other heresies, I say that as an example of the garbage that passes as religion, truth, the word of God. In the hands of the wanton, it becomes unidentifiable. I hang with a different kind of believer, my kind.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

If no one is trying to force a religious view into the science class room what are all the various court cases about then?

---

Your naivete is breathtaking. If you believe that this is about God, you'll believe anything.Take a step beyond yourself and see what is REALLY happening here. It is not about God, or promoting God, or wanting God, or loving God, it is about evil and what it uses to create chaos and dissonance. Think about it.Have a good night, Ned.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

Does this suggest PG that disparagement of that kind of creationist is ok with you?And just what is it that you think they are wrong on?

Are you saying that the automobile mechanic then must observe amd digest of the facts regarding iron mines and oil oil fields, etc. that result in the product that he works on? It would seem to me that you require that we reinvent the wheel everytime one learns about science. I am sorry, but if this were up to you, we would still be debating whether the Wright brothers actually had a viable aircraft design. Does this really make sense to you? My next question is: if creationism were the reigning paradigm, would you require the same reinvention by every scientific inquiry? Do you ever entertain the possibility that this is a gross over-simplification of the facts? Do you really think that scientists just throw these stories together after a long night at the pub? Do you have no curiosity about the environment of life and deposition of the fossil? Do you have no curiosity about what came before and after it? Why it is gone from the modern record? What are its similarities and differences from living species and prior species? "A stack of rocks", eh? Might it ever occur to you that there is more to the rock record than a stack of debris? Is it possible that the patterns in the rock actually mean something? Or should we just ignore those patterns and rely on your interpretation of the Bible? I'm glad we agree on this point. The rocks are telling us something, so why not learn to read them? Of course they could be falsified. Now YEC or ID... there are some unfalsifiable theories! And you are wrong. The geologic column is tested every day. It is possible to falsify it, but you would have to know something about it first. Just 'knowing that it's wrong' is not quite enough. You mean 'ignore everything else' just as you do when you say that you simply can't believe that quiescent deposition can occur for millions of years? I have asked why not, but you fail to answer except for continued pronouncements of incredulity. And you have the nerve to wonder why we do not take you seriously! Ah, then there's the example of the Grand Canyon stratigraphy that must be applied to the entire planet. Does this make sense to anyone out there? You may wait, if you wish. I have work to do, and the real world dictates that I have to move on while you reinvent the entire world of geological science.Well, that covers one of your paragraphs...In the meantime, since we are all in the mood to whine, how about a thread detailing the insults to science and scientists by YECs? You know, the ones that say we are a bunch of gullible dupes, who've been brainwashed into believing in evolution, and yet we have this amazingly effective conspiracy to hide the real facts (etc., etc., etc.).

yeah i'm a little lost too.i think enough knowledge and research and questioning will slowly turn a creationist against creationism. i know my religion has been slowly disappearing the more i study it.

quote:

---

Take a step beyond yourself and see what is REALLY happening here. It is not about God, or promoting God, or wanting God, or loving God, it is about evil and what it uses to create chaos and dissonance. Think about it.

---

So, even though all of those people doing these things call themselves Christians, and wholeheartedly believe that they are, in fact, very good christians, is is accurate to assume that you do not feel they are "true" Christians?(The reason I ask is because I seem to remember some time ago you saying that you couldn't judge who was a "true christian", and that it was between them and God, which is in contrast to what you seem to be saying now. Please correct me if I am misremembering.)

Scraf, he may have a point though.I do wonder myself how much of the creationist stuff is political rather than religious. It is hard to unscramble.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-20-2005 01:47 AM

My how superior we all are. Aren't we?Percy started with a somewhat slanted, but interesting question. Faith gave an excellent explanation, even if I felt Faith may have had some errors about science and evolution. In fact it was such a good reply, I wondered where the heck (s)he was all this time. This was quality writing.I did not think it called for people to point out every error, and I found it a bit interesting that no one (at least not till later) admitted some of the tentativity of Evolutionary Theory, which seemed to me what Faith had been driving at.I think this would have been a nice place to find out how communication can occur between evolutionary theorists and creationists regarding how we treat science in general and theories regarding earth/life history in specific.Is there a slant at EvC? Well yes, and some of it is with good reason as will happen when one side is presenting better hands consistently. That kind of slant can't really be helped. However there is also a bigotry by many "evos" here based on the fact that they have played winning hands in the past, which seems to have granted them an illusion everything they do must be gold... and in some strange cases a justification for not using reason in other circumstances.In fact, evos here that do very well on evolutionary theory arguments sometimes thoroughly reject reason and evidence once the evc issue is no longer the topic, though science may be. In those cases I have seen evos continue to bash creationists outside evc topics, based on the fact that the creos were not winning on evc topics.I guess what I am saying is that it does appear that there is a bias against creos in that they are treated as if they have nothing worthwhile to say or believe. There is a smugness by many evos just because they happen to use scientific method on evc questions, they must be superior across the board (nevermind the lack of science anywhere else).I'm not going to get into a huge finger pointing session, but will use as my evidence the fact that I have on several occassions had to (or felt I had to) defend creos regarding their nonEvC beliefs from evos that were simply punking on them in the most hypocritical fashion. And when I defended these creos I got no support, just disappearing acts from the evo side.Thus if they cannot come on here and discuss anything without getting punked on, despite using equal criteria as evos (ie if they cannot get cut slack on issues where even the evos are no longer using evidence and logic), then there is a problem... There is a problem.If they felt they could at least get some traction then perhaps it would be a bit more interesting to try and bridge the gap on some of the more stubborn aspects of EvC.Oh, before anyone pulls out the PCKB card, let me say I admit some culpability for smugness and jumping on creos when I smell blood regarding EvC. I am only saying this as I think we all could have cut Faith some slack and noted the excellent writing and perhaps some of our own weaknesses. That did not appear to be the case.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes - an excellent point, HoweverI have no real idea of how we proceed with such threads as the "tired light" one. That thread indicated a massive gulf not only in knowledge but how people perceive their treatment here at EvC.I'll be frank*, some of the posts over there deserve all the scorn they are getting.*you can be roger....

I don't know if I am a strict creationist, Percy. I believe that God was the first cause. I believe that He created through His omnipotant imagination, and I don't really get hung up on how it all happened. My rhetorical arguments of explaining how my faith has been substantiated in me and in other believers carry a lot of weight with me. I respect the fact that evidence and rational duplicatable experiment and experience carry more weight with you. Don't be dissappointed, Percy. That is what makes this sight unique. The fact that the two sides can even dialogue and attempt to understand each other is encouraging to me, at least. I believe in the supernatural and you don't. if I can appear rational to you at times, you may accept that my belief in the supernatural is at least not a sign of mental illness--if nothing more! I agree with you and yet I also agree with Percy.We need to see that we all have different worldviews. I always say that some base their final authority on human wisdom arriving at logical and verifiable conclusions, whereas I, believing that God is the final authority, may see some conclusions that are against God as evidence of a supernatural warfare that has been infecting humanity like a virus from day one.Of course, my "theory" is based only upon my belief, and is verifiable only within my own mind. As scientists, Percy and the evo's surely can see this. I agree that it is annoying to be ridiculed for such beliefs. I respect the rules that science uses, however. They need not ever give my belief any merit until and unless it (He) influences them. Now here, Percy, I agree with Faith. Science is science. It cannot suffer. Belief is merely more important to some than is science, for they have had some deep epiphanies in life that affected them more than logic. Sigh..this is why I rarely play cards with you, Crashfrog. You always have to win! Look at Chiropractic, however. It was once thought of in a negative way and yet today there are many who have documented results with its use. Nobody can prove the ineffectiveness of Chiropractic. Similarly, nobody can prove the ineffectiveness of Belief. It is not scientific, yet it need not be dismissed. I think that we need to play with a FULL Deck and recognize belief as an important part of life. Yes, and we also talk about Faith. Both sides CAN coexist, here. Some may say that they have faith only in facts, whereas others will proclaim faith in a mystical relationship which they have and which you may not perceive. Don't belittle them for it. Accept them and debate in love and not pride! Yes, I agree with you and respect your passion.Saying that some things are part of a bigger mystery is not a copout for us, however. We believe that some things are revealed to us by God, in time. Unlike Ned Flanders, if you handed me a proof that God did not exist, I would laugh at it---not out of disrespect for science, but out of acknowledgement of the Mystery and of the Creator.Where we disagree is that I ascribe to a higher "unimpeachable source" and you do not. I will never claim a scientific proof for my belief, however. Science by definition never stops asking questions, and this is good. Occasionally, I get arrogant and insist that you recognize my source!
(God) You are not required to do so, however. I can still say that you will someday, but that only annoys you so I try and shut up! Good point. I think that the issue is about what the definition of education should be in a public and private setting.Some feel that exposure to the "other side" will weaken their beliefs and/or critical thinking. It is up to the religious parents to teach their kids about religion. It is not up to the school. They fret because they claim that science is a religion. I would disagree, saying that it is only a belief in the preeminence of human wisdom. They can teach their kids that fact and let the kids draw their own conclusions. If God is real, He will reach them even after they learn science.

quote:

---

I do wonder myself how much of the creationist stuff is political rather than religious. It is hard to unscramble.

---

I wonder that, too, and I also have a hard time figuring out who are the charlatains and who are the people who really think they are doing God's work when they televangelize and beg for money, or run for president.However, the point I was trying to make was that a while ago, PG said in the "Who is a true Christian" thread that he would never presume to judge who was a true Christian and who wasn't, yet recently he reversed his position and said it was quite clear who the "true christians" were.I was just wondering if he was going to flip-flop again or stick to a position.

quote:

---

Now here, Percy, I agree with Faith. Science is science. It cannot suffer.

---

Maybe you misunderstood what I think was Percy's shorthand.I think he was saying that scientific progress and the understanding of science by all people suffers as a direct consequences of the efforts of Creationists because they wish to promote their religion over science and reason. Even worse, they disguise their religion as science.Now we see anti-intellectual, anti-science legislators in the highest seats of government as well as every other level of government. There is a chilling effect upon research as these powerful people make descisions regarding curriculum in schools, funding for research and programs, etc.

quote:

---

Look at Chiropractic, however. It was once thought of in a negative way and yet today there are many who have documented results with its use. Nobody can prove the ineffectiveness of Chiropractic.

---

Of course we can prove the ineffectiveness of chiropractic, just like we proved the ineffectiveness of blood letting or magnets.Chiropractic is still thought of in a generally negative way by people who are aware of the research regarding it's effectiveness (or lack therof).If you want a very well-researched, accurate overview of Chiropractic and to see the evidence that it is ill-defined and mainly not based upon science, and is filled with people using dubious practices, check out the following website: chirobase