Books By Creationists?

Of course. Nobody is perfect and I have never implied otherwise. Everyone is prone to rash judgements. Nothing at all. But you have not demonstrated that Tram is guilty of this, you have just leapt to that conclusion. But the fact that the book is about creationism (or in my example, geocentrism) does matter. It changes things.If I (or Tram or anyone) were to approach creationism for the first time and simply dismiss it, that would be unreasonable. It would still not be dishonest - I actually think that you are misusing the term. There would be no intention of being deceptive. You would be right to call it unreasonable though. It would be illogical and unreasonable to dismiss something out-of-hand, without giving it a fair chance to make its case.The problem is, what should we do when we encounter the same idea time after time? Every time I look at creationism I see it making bad arguments and I see it falsified by numerous lines of evidence. At its absolute bestt best I see it making unfalsifiable claims.Now, this isn't about creationism specifically. Let's continue with our geocentricism example. Say I encounter geocentricism for the first time. I check it out, give it a fair shot and I decide that it is false. Soon I encounter it again, with some new claims of geocentrist evidence, but I look at those and find that they too are wrong. I continue, checking geocentrist claims and finding them to be the purest poppycock.How long should I go on treating geocentricism as though I have no preconceived ideas? How many chances should I give it? How open should my mind be to the claims of geocentrists after I have seen their claims shredded time after time? How long should I effectively pretend that I haven't seen it repeatedly falsified?There is nothing wrong with having a previously-conceived idea when you based those previous conceptions upon evidence. Preconceptions are only harmful when they are baseless. Well founded conceptions are essential to our everyday lives. If we made no judgements and treated every possibility with a completely open mind, we would never get anywhere, so obviously a balance must be struck between maintaining an open mind and learning from our past experiences. No, not at all. It's not about creationism being "obviously" wrong. It's about having personally investigated the issue and having repeatedly found it to be bunkum. Thus, the debunking. I fail to see what is dishonest or even in the least bit unreasonable about identifying a particular philosophy as bunk and wanting to debunk it.So yes, if I encountered creationism for the first time and displayed the attitude that you describe, I would be behaving unreasonably. But having waded through the mire of many creationist texts of one sort or another so many times, why should I have much expectation that this latest book will be any different? It seems far more likely that it will turn out to be just like all the rest.Of course this book might be different. It might be the one precious book with the fabled good creationist argument. But that's fine; if I go in trying to debunk it and can't find any bunk, then I will know that there might be some value in it after all. It's a win-win scenario.Don't conflate a thorough attempt to debunk with a completely closed mind, because that's not the necessarily the case.Mutate and SurviveAbE; Oh, by the way, when I say "Hyper-Scepticism Should be the Norm", I mean in science and philosophy. No-one can be that sceptical in their everyday lives. Not all the time anyway.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

I'm so sick and tired of people calling me a troll over disagreeing with them.You're being very dishonest now. Yes, there are many many theists like this. I find it very telling that you pick this one out of hundreds of arguments and bash me with it.But hey, at least you looked at the page.As far as your other claims go...Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We were created by an invisible being that wants to micromanage our lives down to the color of clothes we wear and how we tie our shoes is a very extraordinary claim. And the only real evidence that will satisfy many people is for God himself to come out of heaven and show how he created the world.Not any claims and argumentation by creationists.And if there is any real bias in science, it's ebcause of theists constantly attacking it and trying to force it to teach what their religion teaches, and under those circumstances would be rightfully and justly deserved.And I'm an atheist who is not so sure about evolution myself. A lot of it is very hard for me to understand.I am also of the belief that evolution is incompatible with creation. Because a complete omnipotent God does not need evolution. He created the entire universe out of nothing, so why would he need evolution? It makes no sense to say that God created evolution. It's complete and utter sophistry.But by far I find the theists and creationists far more dishonest about their arguments and claims than evolutionists so i give them far more credibility.And all you're doing is trying to turn the argument around.And Shows you do not understand falsification. I don't fully understand it myself.And yes, I can see that you are now a theist. Because your statements about evolutionism causing atheism is a typical theists belief that has no basis in fact.Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

I am using the term ''dishonest'' in the sense of ''unfair'' or ''lack of fairness''. This is one of the acceptable uses of the word.So couldn't you say that such an attitude is unfair, is dishonest ? But then, if the attitude towards a book depends on the subject of the book, then it becomes relative to each.The same way you think about creationism, the same way I think of evolution. Every which way I turn it, I see it as being falsified by all angles. That is to say, even if I was not a creationist, I would be not thin kthe ToE would be true.And so, if you see no problem with such an attitude towards creationism, then likewise I should see no problem with such an attitude towards evolution. But the fact remains that I do, I would find it quite dishonest of myself if I were to read a book about evolution just to show how much it is wrong. this is not to say that I won't approach it with preconceptions, based on previous experience, and so I am in total agreement with your last paragraph.

Some of the specific claims of creationism (e.g. a young Earth, that humans and other apes are unrelated) are falsifiable and have been falsified.Other claims of creationism are unfalsifiable (e.g. the existence of an omnipotent God, that God kick-started the Big Bang) and these, naturally, have not been falsified. Sadly, these latter kind tend to be the best arguments that creationism has to offer. Or, just possibly, we believe it to be real because we have examined the evidence and found it to be in evolution's favour.Probably a bit of both though. As I say, no-one is perfect and we all believe what we believe for a mixture of good and bad, valid and invalid reasons. Personally, I would rather remain unfulfilled than embrace a comforting fiction. But that's just me.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

In my own decades of personal experience, basically, yes, really. Though it often plays out as:
Me: There are some factual errors in these claims you made. Here they are along with short explanations as to why they are factually in error.
Cre: WHY DO YOU HATE GOD SO MUCH? WHY ARE YOU DIRECTLY ATTACKING CHRISTIANITY? YOU PATHETIC WORM! YOU ARE GOING TO ROT IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY! BURN! BURN! BURN!!!Seriously, that is almost exactly the kind of hate email that I usually receive from creationists, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one. Really makes you feel that Christian love, don't it?Your first posts on EvC gave me the impression that you have been very sheltered from how most creationists in the English-speaking world have been conducting themselves. We have not be similarly sheltered. There is a difference between creationist claims of supernatural events and creationist claims about the physical evidence. Yes, claims of the supernatural are untestable -- if you disagree with that, then I will invite you to describe just exactly how science can test supernatural claims. However, creationist claims about the physical evidence and about the physical world can be tested, have been tested, and have been shown to be wrong.The supernaturalistic approach required by creationism is untestable, but the empirical predictions that creationism makes are testable. No double standard nor impossible requirements for evidence for creation.

I had already looked at the entire page for the giggles before, since some of them are quite funny (in a good way)But for you to refer to it as the arguments theists used, I had to assume you were trolling me. That page is such an obvious strawman that I can't see how you could say:

quote:

---

In fact hundreds of their arguments (theists and creationists) are summed up here:

​

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

---

And be serious. Except creationist don't usually say does such micro-managing. Without some sort of evolution, Palley's watch argument becomes too big to leave unexplained, and this is why evolution made it possible to be an intellectualy fulfilled atheist.Now, you may not understand the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of evolution, but if you are to be somewhat consistent with atheism, you have to believe in the fact of evolution. I agree that theistic evolution is inconsistent for someone who believs in the christian God.But I was talking more about someone who is a theist, and also believes in the ToE, and so not necessarily a theistic evolutionists. ie someone who believs God is behind evolution. How so ? Asserting I do not understand falsification does not prove I don't.It remains inconsistent to say that creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable, and then say elsewhere that creationism has been shown to be false. You have it backwards. The link between atheism and evolution I made was that all atheist must be evolutionist, not that all evolution leads to atheism.

The problem with this approach is that it ignores evidence.The theory of evolution is something that can be supported easily by real world evidence. Members of all cultures can research the topic and see that evidence. There is worldwide agreement on the broad outline of evolution, and disagreements are primarily about new finds and small details.Creationism and all of it's related beliefs (YEC, global flood, etc.) are the opposite. They do not stem from real world evidence but are held in spite of real world evidence! These beliefs are not worldwide but restricted to members of certain fundamentalist religions. And there are serious disagreements among those religions. There are some 38,000 different flavors, sects, and denominations of Christianity alone.*In science when new evidence is found old theories are modified or discarded. With creationism you are more likely to have a schism and split a denomination in two. The reason is science relies of evidence while creationism relies on belief.Your statement, above, that you would not consider evolution true--no matter what--is a statement of belief, not a reliance on evidence.* Source

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Two people have already addressed that point in the last few posts. 998 more and it becomes a PRATT.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Yes, indeed, most theists do. From the Catholic rules on having sex to theists demanding that you dress up in a suit and tie for going to church when it is a house of worship and not a place to show off.And in fact we get these rules from the Bible itself:A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. (NIV, Deuteronomy 22:5)Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. (NIV, Deuteronomy 22:11)But that's not the point and we're getting away from the original topic at hand.

but neither I, or any major creationist organisation, would claim that the existence of an omnipotent God is a scientific claim. But that isn't YEC.YEC is more then ''God exists'', it is ''God exists and created the universe x time ago, and then a worldwide flood arrived x time ago, etc. etc.'' YEc makes a boatload of falsifiable predictions, and so it makes YEC a falsifiable hypothesis.I'm not saying it is scientific though, but it isn't unscientific because it isn't falsifiable; it is. It is unscientific because it does not respect methodological naturalism. Yes, but the issue of origins is so strongly related to worldviews, that the worldview you view the evidence through will affect how you interpret the evidence.And because evolution is crucial for a consistent atheism, then you could say that you had no choice but to see evolution in the evidence. This comes back to what Einstein had said to Heisenberg in an interview (if I remember correctly): ''In theory, it is what you see that determines your theory, but in fact, it is the theory that determines what you can see''. (it's not a wll-known quote, and in fact I stumbled upon it in one book I have at home that I can't access right now, or else I would have given the reference) And yet I think that is exactly what an atheist is doing when he embraces evolution, because I think evolution is obviously false when examined honestly.

Perhaps, but I think that it places the wrong nuance on what you're saying. You make it sound like you are suggesting that deliberate deception is taking place. I don't think that is what you're suggesting. You seem rather, to be saying that the attitude you cite is closed-minded and thus, an invalid approach to a book or argument. I would not use "dishonest" to say that, but rather "unreasonable" or, as you have it, "unfair". It's a semantic point though. No big deal.I agree that such an attitude would be unfair if it were the first time that someone has encountered the philosophy in question. As we repeatedly encounter that philosophy though, learn more about and gradually make a lasting judgement on its merits, matters change somewhat. If we previously found the philosophy to have merit it seems reasonable to be more trusting of that philosophy. If we previously encountered that philosophy and found it lacking in merit though, it seems equally reasonable to express increasingly extreme scepticism.It is foolish to be completely closed-minded, but it is equally foolish to refuse to learn from our previous experience. Yes! Yes! Absolutely. I totally see where you are coming from. I don't think you should have a problem with that. You are sceptical of evolution. Okay. Go for it I say. Debunk it. Give it a good, hard debunking. Debunk the shit out of it! In the process you will discover the strengths and weaknesses of that argument. this is a good thing. Find the bunk, if you can, and hold it up for all to see.Of course, I have a suspicion that you won't find it so easy, but that's the fun bit! Well I don't. I think that wrong ideas need to be opposed. Both because;a) Genuinely wrong ideas need to be opposed, and;
b) In critically examining ideas that we might mistakenly believe to be correct (but which are, in reality, false) we may best discover the flaws in our own arguments.If we constantly apply harsh criticism to ideas we oppose, yet come up with no valid criticisms, then we can learn from that. Of course, it is also necessary to apply this harsh scepticism to one's own ideas to some extent.Scepticism is the slaughterhouse of bad ideas. There is nothing wrong with applying it to the ideas of others, just as long as you do not consider your own ideas to be exempt from scepticism. Certainly, I see nothing wrong with approaching a book with this level of scepticism, especially if experience has taught us that healthy scepticism is justified.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

But realize that this is how I could feel about the ToE: it is being held in spite of the evidence.But I know better then this: the theory determines how you view the evidence, and I know this goes both ways. New evidence is simply being fitted into the reigning paradigm, and because evolution is a requirement for atheism, then even though a paradigm shift is possible theoretically, I know that in practice it will never happen. I did not say 'no matter what'. I said that even if I wasn't a creationist, I would still not believe in the theory of evolution because I think it does not fit the evidence.I would probably be in the same mold as Dr. Berlinski. An agnostic highly skeptical of evolution, and that is because of the evidence.

Evolution was examined in a court of law several times in an honest fashion and was shown to be true, beginning with the famous Scopes Trial and up until Selman vs Cobb County School District and the Dover Panda trial, and found to be factual.Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

No, it is not. I have already explained that. Surely you can pick up on the confusion you are casuing by insiting on using the word "dishonest"? Perhaps the native English speakers have a slight edge on the native French speaker on what English words mean (irrespective of the multiple meanings listed in dictionaries)? Of course; and I'm sure also with the worldwide academic views of the history of the Universe through cosmology, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, etc. Guess what? No one cares. You are in such an insignificant minority that if it wasn't for the damage creationists are causing to education, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, as EvC wouldn't exist. Creationism is regarded slightly below geocentrism in academic circles - it is openly laughed at and regarded the domain of the utterly deluded. I did not meet one self-acknowledged academic (excluding undergrad) YEC in my entire academic career, depsite being an active evangelical Christian.

And I regard most of those types of claim as having been falsified. But the fact remains that creationism still rests, at its base, on the unfalsifiable notion of a supernatural being with loosely defined magical powers. That idea is unfalsifiable. But that also leads to unfalsifiable notions. If we are willing to admit as explanations loosely defined supernatural entities, with potent magical powers, nothing can be falsified.We are probably drifting from the topic a little though... We are all guilty of this way of thinking, top a greater or lesser extent. The point is that logical thinking and especially (when dealing with claims about the observable world) the scientific method are the best means we have of overcoming these flaws in our approaches.I don't see that aggressively critiquing an idea that you dislike is problematic, just as long as you are willing to apply that same scepticism to your own ideas and happy to have others attack your claims with that same zeal. Well naturally! You think that you're right, I rather fancy that I'm right. What I'm saying is that in our attempts to get to the truth of who is really right about an issue, the debunking approach is a valid one. It's not the only one, but it is not incompatible with an open mind.If I has to pin down the one thing that I most strongly believe you have got wrong, it's that. You seem to think that an aggressive debunking approach is necessarily closed-minded. I say that it is not.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage