Books By Creationists?

Well, no, for a number of reasons.(1) An atheist in (let us say) the thirteenth century could have said (to himself, because fire is all hot and burny): "Although I do not understand the reason for the following natural phenomena [insert long list here] nonetheless I can be confident that the explanation will not involve the actions of a being whose existence I find trivial to disprove."Now, not only would he have been consistent, but he'd also have been right, since such explanations have now been found. Where is the inconsistency, where the untenability of such a view?(2) Atheists did have ideas about possible explanations for the phenomena which we now know to be the products of evolution. They were, as it happens, all wrong, but they had 'em. It is not atheism that compels one to the solution we have today, but increased biological knowledge. (And theist biologists have found it equally compelling.)(3) Even if one admitted the necessity of a magical explanation, one need not admit the necessity of a divine explanation. "God" as usually understood is not defined as "the being (or beings) who does (or do) the magic that conveniently fills the gaps in our knowledge". Only if he wants his answer to be consistent, not just with atheism, but with the facts. In which case a theist is in exactly the same boat.

It becomes untenable because it would have no answer to the question of origins, and any consistent worldview must have an answer to the question of origins. This is why your atheist would have not being intellectually satisfied with the answer you proposed.This is why, if we were to travel back in time and find one of those thinking atheists of the day, if they would have attempted an answer, it would invariably have been an evolutionary one. What I'm saying is, if whenever an atheists has attempted an explanation, it would have been by necessity an evolutionary one.Now I'm not saying someone can't be an atheist and not an evolutionist, but this would be because he hasn't stopped to think about the question of origins. Maybe he simply concentrated on the problem of evil, or some other such thing. But his worldview would have been incomplete (this is probably a better word than ''inconsistent). But if he ever decided to try and answer Paley's argument, his only option within atheism would have been evolution.This is why I say that evolution is a requirement of a complete atheistic worldview. Well, I used the word the larger word supernatural, which seems to englobe magical in the sense you are using it. But it goes more then that, if the facts did not allow for evolution to be possible, then I contend that the consistent atheist would have three option:1- Belief, in spite of the facts, that some sort of evolution happened
2- Change worldview and no longer be an atheist
3- Avoid the question of origins altogether, and ignore Paley's argument.The theist worldview is different in that it can hold in both cases if the evidence makes evolution possible or impossible.

Except there's one extremely big hole in your generalizations and attacks upon atheism.A lack of belief in something is not dependent upon the belief of something else in order to justifya lack of belief in something.That's all atheism is, is a lack of belief in God or religion. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like having a lack of belief in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy and Harry Potter. This is something no Theist can understand and always have to demonize it like you and your kind have been doing in this very thread.Because all of your arguments are so general that you can use them to show how Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, and Harry potter can exist.And evolution is a fact. Just because you can't believe in it doesn't make you right. That's your other big flaw and it also seems to be a common one in people like you. And that flaw is "because I don't like it as well as I don't understand it it just can not be true no matter what".If you were honest you'd realize this and not try to turn this around against atheism.There is nothing wrong with not having a belief in God. If there is then it defeats the purpose of having free will.If we're supposed to blindly follow God to the letter of the law, then he shouldn't have given us free will.

Hi Tram Law.First of all, it would really help if you reply using the reply button at the lower right corner of the messages you are replying to. This helps a lot in keeping track of the replies and answers to each posts. ThanksNow You shouldn't view it as an 'attack', because that is far from being my intention. I like to discuss much more then debate I fully understand the reasoning, I have seen it exposed here multiple times. ''I'm just lack belief in one more God then you do'', etc.But here is where I think that reasoning, although true, does not tell the whole story: I do not identify myself by all the beliefs I do not have, no one does that. Each human build his worldview based on what he does belief, not what he does not belief.And because each human has a worldview, the atheist is no exception. And because you don't build a worldview around lacks of beliefs, then what does the atheist build his worldview upon ? I propose that he build his worldview on the belief that ''no god exists''. When I talk of atheism as a worldview, this is what I am referring to.A sub-category of atheism is naturalism, and their worldview is based upon the belief that ''only nature, ie matter and energy, exist''. (this, of course, entails atheism) My kind ? What is that supposed to mean ? And just because evolution is a fact does not make you right. See what I just did ? 'people like me' ? Who's really having a provocative behavior here ? Nice strawman. Thank God that is not how I think about this issueNo, I understand the ToE as well as anyone here. It is not from a lack of understanding that I disbelieve it, but from a lack of being convinced by it, and from a serious doubt that the evidence supports it. I never said there was something wrong with that, I just pointed out that a complete naturalist/atheist worldview must include evolution. And God does not ask that we blindly follow him. Some christians may say that, but that is certainly not what I see in the Biblical message.AbE: I am not turning anything against atheism, I can assure you. Each worldview has some specifications about how it will answer the different ''foundational questions'', if I can call them that way (why are we here ? Where do we come from ? etc.) Some worldviews give amazing lattitude on some questions, and tight restrictions on others.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

No.And you have yet to point out the inconsistency in my thirteenth-century atheist's thinking.As to it being "untenable", he'd have been right. It would be no more untenable for him to think that there was a non-divine explanation for (for example) the rainbow or the origin of species, and to hope, if not believe, that one day it might be discovered, than it is for me to think the same thing about ball lightning or the origin of life. It's perfectly tenable. I ten it. Except that as a matter of plain historical fact you're wrong and they didn't. Or because he lacked the data necessary to arrive at the correct answer. Something he'd have in common with a few theists I could name.It's only our actual knowledge that forces us to an evolutionary explanation. In that it's a completely different word, yes. Well, again, this is just historically inaccurate. 4- Accept the theory of pretersupation, which explains the facts perfectly.... well, we are discussing a hypothetical counterfactual world in which the facts are completely different, aren't we?

The things that he does believe.

Ok, I'll try a different perspective in the hope you can understand what I mean. See below Some did, and those who did proposed an evolutionary answer.Those that didn't, like your 13th century atheist, aren't actually proposing an answer. They are saying they hope someone in the future will find the answer. What I am saying is that this answer, if it is to fit with your 13th century atheist, is going to have to be evolutionary in nature. But your atheist did not give an answer; he just hoped someone someday would. And the only answer that can fit within atheism is an evolutionary one. Thanks for pointing it out, your a real genius No, because historically, when an answer was given ,ti was an evolutionnary one (as opposed to your proposed none-answer) Unfortunately, unless you can detail me another option, this is false. Such a petersupation theory cannot exist.Because either the complexity in biology came from a supernatural intervention/process, either it came through naturalistic processes.If it came through naturalistic process, it either evolved from simpler forms, or it naturally poofed in a single step, which turns out to be little different from supernatural poofing out of existence in a single step.So there are only three categories possible, with natural one-step and supernatural one-step being different only in a tautological manner (is that a correct use of the word ?), and so only an evolutionnary explanation is left for the atheist.

So you will have to enlighten me on what those are.If you meet someone, and that person asks you what you believe in, won't your very first answer be that you are an atheist ? In my experience it is, from discussion with fellow physics students from all levels, as soon as we talk about beliefs this is the first things that pop up ''I'm an atheist'', ''I'm an agnostic'' ''I'm a theist''.The beliefs of ''I think God(s) do(es) not exist'' ''I think we can't know if God exists'' and ''I think God does exist'' seem to be the one major underpinning of anyone's worldview.What other beliefs take as much, or maybe more?, in someone's worldview then those ?

... still wrong. ... still wrong. ... still wrong. ... still wrong. Well, what the other theory might be would depend on what the other facts were. And a three-time winner of the Noah Webster Prize For Knowing What "Inconsistent" Means.That's something that you could aspire to.

No. My very first answer is usually "fish". I do, after all, have a firm, deep, and abiding belief in their existence; a solidity of faith besides which your mere belief in God is as a shadow.But then I'm literal-minded. If you ask someone "what do you believe in", especially if the context establishes that you're talking about religion, then an atheist will usually treat the question as meaning: "what are your religious views", and will therefore tell you that he's an atheist.But atheism per se doesn't get you very far towards a "worldview". Nor does theism if it comes to that. The resemblance between your "worldview" and that of a self-castrated devotee of Cybele is not a close one.

Then I guess there is nothing more to discuss

Hi Slevesque, From Berlinski. He is a Big bang denier, author of Was There a Big Bang? (the question mark is rhetorical; Berlinski thinks there wasn't).You said that, were you not a creationist, your ideology might well resemble his. My advice is that if you want a career in physics, you might want to keep quiet about your admiration for this crackpot. Firstly, it is not in the least bit surprising that CMI is able to reel off a few score YEC scientists. I knew that already, lots of creationists trot out these silly lists. The lists are valueless. Science is not a democracy and even if it was, there are pitifully few names; a hundred or so is piss-poor given the huge number of active scientists alive. Anyway, it's not a matter of there being YEC scientists. It's about whether they are doing YEC science and YEC science is a complete failure.But really, you seem to have completley missed my point. I am not interested in how many YECs with science PhDs you can name. I am interested in how many non-creationist evolution doubters you can name.You seem to think that were you not a YEC, you would still doubt evolution. You seem to think that in such circumstances, you would hold a similar position to Berlinski.You're almost certainly wrong.If you weren't a YEC, you would have no percentage in denying reality. You would not need to disagree with science. You would be like most non-creationists, in that you would simply accept evolution or you just wouldn't care about it.This is obvious in that almost all the evolution deniers you can name are, at least in part, creationist in outlook. Certainly they are theists. They seek to replace evolutionary science with magical or divine causes. Meanwhile, atheist or agnostic evolution sceptics are exceedingly thin on the ground.If it makes you happy to believe that you would still doubt evolution even without your religious convictions, then go ahead. But the odds are against it.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

Admiration is a very strong word, I simply think because with both have a mathematical background that I would have the same approach.And btw, this isn't the topic but, you have a very bizarre view of how a scientists should act if he disagrees with a scientific theory, given what you have said earlier about how science is supposed to work.Yet here you advice me that if I disagree with the mainstream theory, I should just keep it to myself ? It was simply to try to put a figure on how many scientists doubted the theory of evolution, since you brought up looking at it from a numbers POV in the first place. I was saying that, if I changed my mind today on YEC and concluded is was false, I would still not believe in the ToE. Meaning that I would prefer to live intellectually unsatisfied rather then embrace a comforting fiction I do not deny reality. I deny how it is interpreted by others. Fortunate, then, that such a feat is impossible.However, I can disagree with scientists, and I most certainly would. No, because I have reasons to doubt evolution that do not rest on my religious convictions. Therefore, were I to abandon my religious convictions, I would still doubt evolution.

Then the question becomes - What makes one interpretation superior to another? Right? Do you agree that specific verified predictions add considerable positive and objective weight to a theory? An example would be the precise predicted nature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation. Another example would be the prediction and subsequent discovery of Tktaalik.Do you agree that such examples add considerable weight to the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution respectively?Big Bang prediction: NASA LinkAnd here is the Tiktaalik prediction: Are there any comparable (or indeed any) creationist predictions which have been verified?

When Billy Graham goes to darkest Africa to convert the darkest Africans, he uses an interpreter. If he says, "Jesus died for our sins," the interpeter can't just say, "Some guy died," or, "My Studebaker has a flat tire." That would not be a valid interpretation. It would, in fact, be a denial of the reality of what Billy said.So no, you don't just get to re-interpret everything.

---

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