Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8776 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-16-2017 7:50 PM
348 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DOCJ
Post Volume:
Total: 816,092 Year: 20,698/21,208 Month: 1,131/2,326 Week: 467/345 Day: 124/208 Hour: 6/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
23242526Next
Author Topic:   I Am Not An Atheist!
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2909
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 316 of 382 (670191)
08-10-2012 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by marc9000
08-09-2012 7:54 PM


Probably largely as a response to being on the receiving end of derogatory and inapplicable labels made to them by atheists. How many times does the term “flat earther” get a mention on these forums?

I do not recall having ever called a "true Christian" a "flat earther". Please provide us with examples of this having happened. For once, try to be honest (as much as that goes against your theology).

Now, flat-earthers, few though they may be, do base their position on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that they stubbornly hold against all evidence. Religious beliefs that they absolutely refuse to compromise on. Exactly like you. Different beliefs, but absolutely the same mind-set.

Perhaps you are also thinking of how people don't seem to like you very much, and as a result you lash out that they hate you just because of what you believe (I'm not sure whether you have personally articulated that, but foreveryoung and others most certainly have). In response to foreveryoung, I quoted from memory from a Bob Newhart show (the old one where he was a psychologist):

quote:
Middle-aged black patient, very hostile: Everybody hates me because I'm black.
Bob: No, maybe they hate you because you're not a likeable person.
Patient (touched, perhaps having a break-through): Do you think so?

Conservative Christians (which includes fundamentalists and evangelicals) continually try to seize political power and destroy constitutional guarantees and to attack science education and to attack everybody else's rights, including religious liberty. And they have a long history of aggressive and extremely distasteful proselytizing; in the decade following the "Jesus Freak" movement of circa 1970, you couldn't turn around without being accosted by a fundamentalist. And after having made yourself so unlikeable, you actually have the gall to pretend to be amazed that nobody likes you?

It is a wonder that you are treated with so much courtesy!

And that’s the “No True Scottsman fallacy” isn’t it? Creationists are accused of that one all the time it seems.

Now, in the restrictive example you gave where one's claims could be immediately compared with obvious contradictory behavior, then you would be right. But that's not what we are talking about.

There are virtually countless accounts of true believing Christians who have since lost the faith, many of them actually becoming atheists. When those accounts are presented to you and your confederates, the invariable response was "well, obviously they weren't true Christians." That is what we're talking about.

The truth of the matter is that whenever the situation is brought up of an actual true believer who then became an atheist, the fundamentalist reaction we get is "well, he never was a true Christian anyway", because according to your theology, no "true Christian" could ever leave the faith. But it does nonetheless happen, regardless of what you would want to believe.

True Christians do indeed leave the faith. It happens all the time. It's happening in droves as your (pl) children, raised on that stuff, are fleeing it in droves. If they never were true Christians, whose fault is it anyway? Given that you (pl) were the ones who raised them all their lives.

Instead of trying to deny the simple and plain facts, you need to address them and to come up with a real solution.

Creationists tend to remember the Biblical phrase “by their fruits shall ye know them”.

Oh the irony! Yes, everybody other than creationists do remember that phrase and they do invoke it. Rather, it's the craetionists who try so very hard to forget the Matthew 7:20 Test:
quote:
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


You've heard of my friend, Gary, from church. He had been a fervent fundamentalist for so many years, having to constantly turn a blind eye to the everyday realities that contradicted his fundamentalist beliefs. Finally, all that self-deception became too much for him, so he applied the Matthew 7:20 test to Christianity. Yes, Christianity did do some good things, but it also has done and continues to do so many bad things. Christianity fails the Matthew 7:20 test.

BTW, as a "complete atheist and total humanist", Gary feels much more spiritually fulfilled than he ever did as a Christian.

So when Deists and other “religious evolutionists” look and behave like atheists, they share a large part of the blame when some other members of society determine them to be no different than atheists in their political views, including a desire to weaken the hold of traditional religion.

Err, "traditional religion"? Just what exactly are you talking about? Fundamentalism only goes back about 100-110 years ago, hardly "traditional". Fundamentalist theology's dispensationalism only goes back to some time in the 19th Century, hardly "traditional religion". Marionism and papal infallacy only goes back to some time in the 19th Century, so hardly "traditional religion". The Rapture? 1830's.

Obviously, that's all new-fangled BS that post-dates the founding of this country. Nothing traditional about it!

OK, marc9000, here's the gouge, the straight skinny. The USA is not a Christian state; whether or not it is a Christian nation depends on the beliefs of the whole of the USA population. According to the Constitution of the United States of America, religion has no hold over the government, even though the officers who have served in that government since is inception have not always held true to that ideal. If the populace of the country decides to be Christian, then by that percentage the nation could be considered Christian (even though most of those Christians you would declare to not be such -- you cannot have it both ways, you should know). And if, as you say, "the hold of traditional religion" weakens, then it is because the populace as a whole has become less convinced. Which is to say that the "traditional religion" position (whatever that is supposed to be!) has been unable to win out against reality. Is that supposed to be because of the opposing positions have been able to present a better argument? Or because your position has demonstrated that it's completely contrary-to-fact?

In an open market of ideas, for your ideas to prevail they must demonstrate some kind of superiority to the other ideas available.

Good luck!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:54 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4947
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 317 of 382 (670192)
08-10-2012 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by marc9000
08-09-2012 7:40 PM


marc9000 writes:

Without the atheism, it [evolution] wouldn’t get near the attention and public spotlight that it gets. Biological change over time – what could be more boring? If it had nothing to do with atheism, these forums wouldn’t exist, popular books wouldn’t be written about it, court cases concerning it wouldn’t exist, on and on.

Actually, you have that exactly wrong.

Without a small section of religious believers - the fundamental creationists - making a fuss about evolution because they, and only they, feel it threatens religious belief, evolution would indeed be just another boring science topic in the curriculum.

If it wasn't for some whacky religionists, evolution would be as much discussed in popular books as Hook's Law or particle physics.

Think about that; if creationists didn't make such a fuss about it, neither would anyone else; atheists and believers alike.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:40 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 5:19 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 328 by dwise1, posted 08-10-2012 12:52 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 318 of 382 (670195)
08-10-2012 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Tangle
08-10-2012 3:49 AM


Without a small section of religious believers - the fundamental creationists - making a fuss about evolution because they, and only they, feel it threatens religious belief, evolution would indeed be just another boring science topic in the curriculum.

If it wasn't for some whacky religionists, evolution would be as much discussed in popular books as Hook's Law or particle physics.

I disagree.

First of all, there are lots of popular books about particle physics. How many books do you think are being written right now about the Higgs Boson? They sell, too.

And evolution, is by comparison, much easier to understand. Also, it has a plot, making it more interesting than most science. It's a history, things happen, they happen for reasons, the reasons are the things that happened before.

Then again, there's a market for popular books about biology that hardly mention evolution.

Finally, if the abiding interest in evolution was because of the controversy, then everyone wishing to write a popular book about evolution would make it popular by writing about the controversy. It would be 50% evolution and 50% pointing out how dumb creationists are. I could write such a book myself, but I doubt whether it would be popular. Creationists are not interesting unless one takes a particular interest in the psychology of being wrong, which is a whole different subject from evolutionary biology, so any such book would only appeal to someone who was interested in both subjects.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2012 3:49 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2012 7:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 319 of 382 (670198)
08-10-2012 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by marc9000
08-09-2012 7:40 PM


I think the one thing that has recently brought this out more than anything else is the immediate, widespread rejection throughout the scientific community of the concept of Intelligent Design. Anyone who is the slightest bit religious, anyone but the most militant of atheists, should show some interest, however slight, in Intelligent Design. There’s always the chance that Intelligent Design could show some type of evidence of the actions of whatever Deity they believe in. Their total disregard of it logically indicates that they probably show no real belief in any type of religion.

A couple of serious answers.

First of all, it's precisely the subject-matter experts, no matter what their religious opinions, who are going to reject this stuff. Consider, to take one example, Dembski's rubbish about the No Free Lunch Theorem. Now, I can see why this would be of interest to a non-mathematician. It would feed the self-assurance of a creationist; it might sway an agnostic; it might even convert an atheist.

What it will not do is appeal to a mathematician who knows the subject that Dembski's talking about. It wouldn't appeal to such a mathematician if he was a theist; it wouldn't appeal to him if he was a die-hard creationist: it would embarrass him. The reaction from the subject-matter experts is going to be that they'll laugh at it, ignore it, or write something debunking it and put it on the internet. And the most creationist mathematicians are the ones with the strongest temptation to ignore it rather than admit that one of their own is employing arguments that are at worst dishonest and at best moronic.

---

Second, a theist who is also a scientist will have a different idea of what the glory of God consists in. To a theist scientist, the wonderful thing about the universe is that it works. To a creationist, the wonderful thing about the universe is that it wouldn't work without constant tinkering. While the latter is going around saying that abiogenesis is impossible, the former is crying up the Fine Tuning Argument. But these two arguments are irreconcilable*.

So, you go to a theist scientist and say: "God is awesome. He wanted a universe with life in, so he created a universe in which life was completely impossible. Then he did a miracle to make life."

Well, this is like going up to an engineer and saying: "My friend Bob is both intelligent and strong. He's so smart that he's the first person ever to invent a bicycle with square wheels, and he's so strong that he overcomes this defect by carrying it with him wherever he goes." The engineer would say: "His strength I will admit, but he's also a flaming idiot, isn't he?"

Or suppose I wrote a computer program to achieve some goal, and at a certain point, for want of my skill in programming, it had to stop and ask me to figure out some mathematical question for it with pencil and paper. Do you suppose you could convince a computer scientist that this was a greater tribute to my intellectual powers than if I'd written a program that just worked when I ran it?

A scientist (rightly or wrongly) will admire God for being good at science; and the greatest scientific achievement of God would be to design the laws of the universe and choose the boundary conditions so that they produced the results he wanted to get. The God of the creationists is a mere blunderer by comparison.

* Footnote: the fact that these arguments are irreconcilable does not prevent creationists from deploying them both, because, as I have pointed out on another thread, creationists have a collection of arguments, not a systematic world-view. So, for example, the Jehovah's Witnesses gave me a pamphlet which on one page used the fine-tuning argument and on the next page claimed that the formation of stars was impossible and must be attributed to a miracle.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:40 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4947
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 320 of 382 (670203)
08-10-2012 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2012 5:19 AM


Dr A writes:

First of all, there are lots of popular books about particle physics.

I did consider looking up the Amazon lists but decided that life was, indeed, too short.

But without the creationists nonsense, a book on evolution would sell to people with a general interest in natural science only and it would be as popular as any other interesting area of science like, say, astronomy. The added 'controversy' of religion, simply adds a massive new market for the books - as Dawkins, Jones, Dennet et al have found.

The creationist reaction against evolution has fuelled a very visible resurgent debate that simply would never have happened if evolution had been accepted as a scientific fact like any other.

In the States of course, it literally IS about books - creationists want their science books to be different from the mad, atheistic 'evolutionists' - and everyone else's too. If they didn't, the world would hardly give them a glance and evolution wouldn't be anything special inside or outside the science class.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 5:19 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 9:12 AM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15659
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 321 of 382 (670205)
08-10-2012 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by marc9000
08-09-2012 7:40 PM


Hi Marc,

I find myself in need of a break, so I'm posting a 2nd response to this message to address some of the details of what it says. Just in general, you say a lot of things that reflect either a lack of understanding or an unawareness of significant realities.

marc9000 writes:

I think the one thing that has recently brought this out more than anything else is the immediate, widespread rejection throughout the scientific community of the concept of Intelligent Design.

Science doesn't reject the concept of intelligent design. It rejects claims that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory supported by a broad body of evidence that deserves more serious consideration by scientists and should even be taught as accepted theory in public school science classrooms.

Any hostility you might feel is not directed at the concept of intelligent design but at the exaggerated claims of its legitimacy as an accepted scientific theory. It's the same hostility that might be directed at anyone uttering falsehoods. The reaction of many people to blatant untruths is often visceral and immediate.

Since you have stated many times that science is hostile to intelligent design, and since this misunderstanding has been corrected many times, could we finally reach a resolution on this? Do you now understand that science is not hostile to the concept of intelligent design? Can we hope to have seen the last of this claim, at least from you?

I wish I could get to the rest of your message, but break time's over.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:40 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 322 of 382 (670206)
08-10-2012 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Tangle
08-10-2012 7:17 AM


But without the creationists nonsense, a book on evolution would sell to people with a general interest in natural science only and it would be as popular as any other interesting area of science like, say, astronomy. The added 'controversy' of religion, simply adds a massive new market for the books - as Dawkins, Jones, Dennet et al have found.

I'm not sure that this is true. Dennett is not a biologist, Dawkins does not mix his evolution with his atheism to any great extent, and Jones to the best of my knowledge has never said anything at all about religion. I notice that you didn't mention Gould ... why not? ... ah, yes, "NOMA". One of the most popular writers about evolution has argued explicitly that science says nothing against religion, but you were picking the ripest cherries, which includes Dennett, a philosopher with no more qualifications in biology than my ass, rather than Gould, a professional paleontologist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2012 7:17 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2012 9:42 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4947
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 323 of 382 (670209)
08-10-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2012 9:12 AM


Dr A writes:

I'm not sure that this is true. Dennett is not a biologist, Dawkins does not mix his evolution with his atheism to any great extent, and Jones to the best of my knowledge has never said anything at all about religion. I notice that you didn't mention Gould ... why not? ... ah, yes, "NOMA". One of the most popular writers about evolution has argued explicitly that science says nothing against religion, but you were picking the ripest cherries, which includes Dennett, a philosopher with no more qualifications in biology than my ass, rather than Gould, a professional paleontologist.

I was making no claims for an exhaustive list, merely providing some examples . I could have included many more authors and so could you - you missed Attenborough for example. (Although he's an atheist, he generally sticks to the science)

Jones is a geneticist who regularly and publicly comments on evolution and atheism - I just read read almost like a whale which is a re-write of Darwin's Origin with modern evidence. It's a book almost exclusively about the science but makes passing remarks about religion.

Dennett wrote 'Darwin's dangerous idea' and, if you read it, you'll find that he does indeed know more than your arse about the subject - regardless of qualifications. Indeed he knows a damn sight more than I do (not at all hard) and I'm supposed to have a qualification in it.

Why would Gould mention religion at all? You don't bother pointing out that science says nothing against religion if religion is not already complaining that it is.

Edited by Tangle, : to avoid pedantry


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 9:12 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 10:29 AM Tangle has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 324 of 382 (670215)
08-10-2012 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Tangle
08-10-2012 9:42 AM


I was making no claims for an exhaustive list, merely providing some examples . I could have included many more authors and so could you - you missed Attenborough for example. (Although he's an atheist, he generally sticks to the science)

My point, then.

Jones is a geneticist who regularly and publicly comments on evolution and atheism - I just read read almost like a whale which is a re-write of Darwin's Origin with modern evidence. It's a book almost exclusively about the science but, like Darwin, he makes passing remarks about religion.

I've read that same book several times. I must have missed the bit where he says: "And therefore, God does not exist".

Dennett wrote 'Darwin's dangerous idea' and, if you read it, you'll find that he does indeed know more than your arse about the subject - regardless of qualifications.

He is entitled to do so, but he doesn't count as a biologist writing against theism 'cos of not being one.

Why would Gould mention religion at all?

Indeed.

You don't bother pointing out that science says nothing against religion if religion is not already complaining that it is.

That is hard to parse.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2012 9:42 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2012 11:10 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4947
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 325 of 382 (670217)
08-10-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2012 10:29 AM


Dr A writes:

That is hard to parse.

Let me have another go then.

Had religion not objected so strongly to the idea of evolution, there would be no reason for anyone on the science side of the argument to comment on it. Gould would not have felt a need to mention it.

Religion says nothing about chemical valency because it doesn't obviously affect their beliefs. They ban no chemistry books and raise no petitions or preach from pulpits about the number of electronics in a sodium atom. So no famous chemist is likely to comment that his work does not threaten a religious belief.

Gould is both right and wrong about science not having anything to say about religion; right because science just follows evidence wherever the evidence takes it, but wrong when a particular bit of science - evolution - clashes violently with the literal creation story. Science didn't do it directly, but do it, it did.

Anyhoo, this particular sidetrack is about whether the presence or absence of a religious controversy about evolution sells more books about evolution - that seems inarguable to me, it's perfect PR; but I don't for one moment think that it'll stop you arguing it.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 10:29 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6991
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 326 of 382 (670222)
08-10-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by marc9000
08-09-2012 7:40 PM


I think the one thing that has recently brought this out more than anything else is the immediate, widespread rejection throughout the scientific community of the concept of Intelligent Design.

Once scientists uderstood what ID was about, of course they rejected it. ID is not science. ID is an anti-science.

As dwise can attest, the YEC underpinnings were clear from the start. ID supporters continued with the same refuted arguments that they had used as YEC's. They claim that there are no transitionals, that there is no evidence for evolution. Of course scientists rejected ID. It is based on lies.

We could use other theories as examples, such as Germ Theory. If there was a fundamentalist group that was pushing the idea that Germ Theory was all wrong, and that God was involved in producing disease, what do you think the reaction of christian microbiologists would be? What if the Intelligent Infector (II) proponents were pushing known lies, such as E. coli does not really release lipopolysaccharides, or that bacteria are not correlated with disease symptoms? I would think that honest, christian microbiologists would run away from this christian fundamentalist supported anti-science movement, and rightly so. We have the same situation with ID.

There’s always the chance that Intelligent Design could show some type of evidence of the actions of whatever Deity they believe in.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps people don't need to remove evolution from nature in order to see the actions of their Deity?

Evolution “has nothing to do with atheism” - that’s been the standard scientific talking point for many decades now, but repeating it over and over doesn’t make it any more true. Just because countless man hours over the past 150 years have shown more and more scientific detail in biological change over time, it doesn’t magically erase the atheism that originated, promoted, and continues to promote the enthusiasm that the subject of evolution inspires. Without the atheism, it wouldn’t get near the attention and public spotlight that it gets. Biological change over time – what could be more boring? If it had nothing to do with atheism, these forums wouldn’t exist, popular books wouldn’t be written about it, court cases concerning it wouldn’t exist, on and on.

"To affirm that the Sun ... is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures" [Cardinal Bellarmino, 17th Century Church Master Collegio Romano, who imprisoned and tortured Galileo for his astronomical works]

It would appear that Heliocentrism is atheism as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:40 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by dwise1, posted 08-10-2012 2:34 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 336 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 8:29 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15659
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(5)
Message 327 of 382 (670225)
08-10-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by marc9000
08-09-2012 7:40 PM


This post has received a POTM nomination from Minnemooseus and a 2nd from NoNukes, but what I see is a message where almost every sentence contains something that is either wrong or misunderstood, much of it about things that Marc has been wrong about in the past and already been corrected multiple times, and the comments about Bryan Rehm are just the same despicable Christian bigotry Marc has been spouting since he joined. Perhaps Moose and NN, who haven't yet participated in this thread, can chime in here and help Marc defend that post.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:40 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2909
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 328 of 382 (670226)
08-10-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Tangle
08-10-2012 3:49 AM


Without a small section of religious believers - the fundamental creationists - making a fuss about evolution because they, and only they, feel it threatens religious belief, evolution would indeed be just another boring science topic in the curriculum.

I remember one anti-creationist professor who said that he actually enjoyed having creationists around. It gave him the chance to lecture on evolution to an audience that was interested in what he had to say, instead of the usual roomful of bored students.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2012 3:49 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2909
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 329 of 382 (670228)
08-10-2012 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Taq
08-10-2012 12:08 PM


As dwise can attest, the YEC underpinnings were clear from the start. ID supporters continued with the same refuted arguments that they had used as YEC's. They claim that there are no transitionals, that there is no evidence for evolution. Of course scientists rejected ID. It is based on lies.

Actually, even though the end result is as described, ID has a different origin that "creation science", nor was ID born out of "creation science". The only real connection between the two is that the IDists have been selling ID to the fundamentalists who have adopted it in their new game of "Hide the Creationism", since their old game of "Hide the Bible" has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).

As far as I can tell, the ID movement has its origins with lawyer Phillip Johnson and his book, Darwin on Trial, whose thesis was that evolution fails courtroom rules of evidence. My initial reaction when I first heard him present that in an episode of Nova was: "What an idiot! Science isn't a courtroom procedure, but rather a police investigation. It doesn't follow courtroom procedure, but rather hunts down clues and gathers evidence." Upon further investigation, I find that my initial reaction was right on the mark. Later I read an essay by Johnson where he shared the reason why he opposes evolution: "It leaves God with nothing to do." Pure God of the Gaps thinking, which lies at the root of ID: if we can't explain something, then that's proof of God. Oh, they'll say that the Designer doesn't need to be the Christian god and could just as well be aliens (LGM), but it keeps coming back to being their god, nominally the Christian god but in reality the puny impotent God of the Gaps.

ID itself is different from "creation science" in that it is not wed to bibilical literalism nor a young earth. That makes it a harder opponent since creationism's young-earth lies are so easy to refute. IDists are also much better educated than creationists and are usually professionals in their fields, so they are able to write much better sounding bullshit claims. Of course, part of creationists having adopted ID as their own is that they just slap the ID label on their own lies and cheapen the product immensely.

So then, ID itself is a bit of a different animal than creationism, but in creationists' hands it's just the same old BS as you described.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Taq, posted 08-10-2012 12:08 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 6:41 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 331 by GDR, posted 08-10-2012 7:06 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(3)
Message 330 of 382 (670238)
08-10-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by dwise1
08-10-2012 2:34 PM


ID itself is different from "creation science" in that it is not wed to bibilical literalism nor a young earth.

They're more sort of "friends with benefits".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by dwise1, posted 08-10-2012 2:34 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
23242526Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017