Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

Where does this come from? It comes from the falsehoods and bad theology that you have been fed.Evolution says nothing about God. The majority of believers have no problem with both. The only thing that evolution is any problem for is a minorities interpretation and misunderstanding of the true value of the Bible.While I know that there are many who appear to deliberately espouse very poor theology it is surprising that you haven't gotten the true relationship between the sciences and religion sorted out.The sciences are concerned with the natural world. So science is, by definition, not concerned with God.

Assumptions / Fictions taken as dogma here:That evolution has been proven
That it has been proven scientifically
That all truth is determined by scientific method
That only physical evidence is real evidence
That there is no evidence for creationism
That the Bible can't even be used as a historical reference
That the Bible is not the word of God but just a human creation
That "Around here, we proceed according to the philosophic guidelines that tell us what is science and what is not; those include falsifiability, coherence, tentativity, and parsimony."
That creationists deserve only to be spoken to as if they were vermin.

Believers in what, pray tell? Evolution contradicts many statements in the Bible. I guess you can always ignore the Bible and make up your own god of course, believe anything you like, but if you pretend to be a Christian normally one would expect that you adhere to the time-honored creeds of the faith, repeated down through the centuries, all of which affirm the Bible as the inspired word of God and the final authority on the faith.

Let's chew away at these bit by bit shall we.That evolution has occured on Earth is a proven fact. The theory of how it occured isn't, technically "proven" in the 100% math like way of proving things. It is just enormously sure after all this time.In what way hasn't it been "proven" scientifically? That doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you should describe what you think "scientifically" is?I don't think any one here has said all truth is determined by the scientific method. I think most say that we haven't seen any other method that seems to work for determining things about the natural world. If you have a better one we have a thread or two asking for it.If the evidence isn't "physical" how can two people agree on what there is? What "evidence" is there that isn't physical?If you think there is evidence for creationism (and maybe you should define what you mean when you use the word creationism since it seems to mean a lot of things) then please present it for examination and consideration. If that evidence isn't physical then I guess I can't see it so why should I consider something I can't see? (see used to mean observe in some way or another).I'm no expert on history or the Bible. I believe it can be used as a historical reference but I have been told that it isn't a very reliable one and needs to be bolstered with whatever other sources or evidence is available. However, I don't really know.Whether the Bible is the word of God or not seems to me to be a matter of belief. One person may believe one way; another may believe differently. However, even with my limited knowledge it seems pretty apparant that what we have as "the" Bible today is the work of humans. For one thing we don't have any original documents so they are all copies and translations of others. Not my area so you may take that up in one of the Bible threads.Perhaps you should define what you think science is (another topic in this forum I think). If you think you can make up a better way of learning reasonable secure things about the natural word that does not include falsifiablity, reproducability, tentativeness, coherence etc. then that would be interesting. You might -- in that new thread -- show why any one of these characteristics should not be used.I absolutely do not think that creationists deserve to be spoken to as if they were vermin. I do think that those who knowingly lie should be treated as such.I also think that those who are unable to learn and think logically can be pitied.I think that those who wish to force teachings of a specific minority religious veiw into the schools should be treated as dangerous and as opposed to what the USA and other western democracies are founded on.For those who are simply uninformed and have not had a chance to learn but are willing to learn I have both a degree of respect and sympathy over how hard it must be to have some fundamental ideas changed and to discover that some people have been lying to them.I think that you will find that the above views are those of the majority of Christians and have little or nothing to do with any specific science.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-19-2005 09:15 PM

Faith.Almost EVERY major Judaic-Christian-Muslim Church accepts both Evolution as a fact and the TOE as the best explanation. They are also the biggest opponents of teaching Creationism. In fact, the most successful opposition to Creationism comes from Christian Churches.Here is a partial list of churces that accept evolution and the TOE and oppose Creationism. From this siteI can also provide the various statements on Evolution from the major Christian Sects in the US if you would like.But the fact is, it is only a very small minority of Christian sects that find any conflict between Christianity, Evolution, the Theory of Evolution and the Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

That evolution has been proven

---

Evolution is no more "proven" than the existence of atoms has been proven.

quote:

---

That it has been proven scientifically

---

I don't believe anything has ever been "proven" scientifically.Science doesn't "prove" anything.

quote:

---

That all truth is determined by scientific method

---

What do you mean by "truth"?

quote:

---

That only physical evidence is real evidence

---

What do you mean by "real"?

quote:

---

That there is no evidence for creationism

---

There is no scientific evidence for Creationism as far as I know. I'd love to see some if you've got it, but most of the time, when I ask Creationists for scientific evidence which supports Creationsism, they come back with criticisms of Evolution. Not the same!

quote:

---

That the Bible can't even be used as a historical reference

---

I don't think that, do it must not be dogma here.

quote:

---

That the Bible is not the word of God but just a human creation

---

I know several people who accept evolution that also believe that the Bible is the word of God, so that's certainly not dogma.

quote:

---

That "Around here, we proceed according to the philosophic guidelines that tell us what is science and what is not; those include falsifiability, coherence, tentativity, and parsimony."

---

Uh, if you want to have a discussion that is based upon the rules of scientific investingation, why wouldn't you want to use the rules of scientific investigation?Also, we know that when we use these rules, what comes out at the other end works. That is, if we use the method correctly, the information that results tends to be extremely reliable and useful.You know, like how modern medicine is able to develop new drugs that help cure disease.Why wouldn't we continue to use a method that delivers such spectacularly useful and reliable results?

quote:

---

That creationists deserve only to be spoken to as if they were vermin.

---

Now you are overreacting. You really might consider trying to take the criticisms of your position less personally.Anyway, it's only the Creationists who want to infect out science classrooms with religion that I consider vermin.

quote:

---

Assumptions / Fictions taken as dogma here:

---

I just wanted to add that I find it rather amazing that you actually wrote this list after reading crashfrog's and Pink's replies to you which clearly, unambiguously indicated how eager they were to look at any evidence which might contradict the ToE, and that they understood that they could be wtong and would change their views if the evidence warranted it.

Belivers in Christianity and taking the Bible as the "final authority on the faith" but not on things outside of the faith.Matters of faith are not contradicted by science. The fact that the people of the time had no comprehension of the actual nature of the universe around them and were in no way prepared to grasp it simply means that some parts of the Bible are not expected to be equivalent to a modern understanding of the world.If someone wishs to take those parts of the Bible and make them as important as the messages about matters of faith then they are the ones who should be held accountable for the damage that they do to the faith. That is the view of Christians I know well and the view of several Christians here. It is not science that is a danger to the faith it is those who cling to a primitive world view that is centuries out of date and claim that without this view the faith is destroyed. These are the ones that the faithful see as destructive to a more mature, stong faith that doesn't require sciences help to survive.

Darwin proposed a theory based on observations of evidence of the natural world. That theory has been tested countless times and has only been confirmed, and not refuted. At no point did Darwin say "I KNOW the TRUTH, and here is some evidence." The theory was presented in very tentative language.This is quite different from "Creation Scientists", who claim "I KNOW the TRUTH" without natural evidence, and then pick and choose to present evidence they think supports their "TRUTH", while ignoring that which refutes it. That is unscientific and EXACTLY what you propose: Hopefully you realize that the Theory of Evolution does not even begin to "refute the Bible", since it says nothing of the supernatural world. The Theory of Evolution says nothing of God, and does not exclude the possibility of God.Since you threw a rather major insult at the entire legitimate scientific community by stating we either hide or ignore evidence, mounds of it which are available at creationist websites, I'll ask again:Would you please provide one such piece of scientific evidence the supports Creationism or refutes Evolution? We can give you a counter-argument, so that you show it is an argument from prejudice rather than a legitimate one.

Look, friend, these are the things we talk about every day. These aren't assumptions taken as dogma; these are discussions we've had that creationists have lost. We had these discussions. Discussion over. If you have a new argument that would lead us to question these conclusions, then by all means lets start it.But we're not going to re-invent the wheel and try to prove the Earth is round all over again just because you asked us to. Give us a reason, first. If these are conclusions you'd like to challenge then open a thread and get to it. Until then, they stand, because they've already been challenged, and come through.We've had these discussions. It's time for you to get caught up. No one here is advocating this position, which is known as "scientism." That is why we refer to evolution as "accurate", and "the best model", not as "the absolute truth." This is a distinction that you need to be capable of recognizing because it applies to every scientific conclusion. Again, this is a discussion that has been had; this is science as it is practiced by scientists. If you have an alternate view of how science should be conducted then you open a thread and we talk about it. If you win we use your view from now on. If you lose, we stick with ours.Start the discussion if you want to challenge these things. But you have no legitimate basis to complain about the fact that we already discussed some things, and came to some conclusions, long before you arrived. The history of discussion at this forum alone goes back several years. What did you think we were talking about all that time before you showed up?AbE: Oh, and one more thing: How is that an evolutionist assumption?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-19-2005 09:26 PM

quote:

---

You refuse to accept the formula that makes belief possible for the Christian, without understanding that it is not asked of you to accept it for yourself.

​

But that's exactly what you're asking. You're asking to have it taught in school as science. You're asking to have it employed in biology as an explanitory framework. You're asking to have it considered as the underpinning of medicine. I could go on and on - there are plenty of situations where you're asking people to accept creationist models like they're really true and really science.

---

Please do go on and on, and you will still only have what some people want, not necessarily only creationists, but not all of us and especially not those who are determined to keep religion out of public schools. There are many of the latter, I am one of them.I have never met a creationist who would suggest that religion is science or who would attempt to pass it off as such. Those are the fabrications with which you flatter yourself and that feed your prejudices.

quote:

---

I have plenty of respect for life. I have no respect for lies offered as truth

---

What lies do you offer for truth? That evolution is the be all and end all of all? You know that is not true, and if you promote it as truth, you are much more into lies than I ever could be.I determine what I believe, you determine what you believe. And surely, I have no respect for the lies you promote and offer as truth.

---

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

not dogpiling here, but i wanted to jump in on something people seem not to have mentioned, and attack this from an angle people haven't considered yet. now, i consider myself a christian. i think the bible is a really interesting book. but the more i study it, the less of god i see in it. it is just simply not written as if god wrote it, it's written like a bunch of independent conflicting sources, compiled and editted together, often in ways that don't make sense.idealogies and themes change. bits are copied, but with differences. there's typos, mistakes, and often dated anachronisms and misconceptions about the natural world. there's overlap.it has become increasinly apparent to me that not only is the bible composed many different books by different authors, but that the individual books are ALSO compilations. at least three authors contributed to genesis. pslams is five independed collections.if god's responsible for this, he's not a very good author. if he was directing the hand of man, he could have directed it a bit better. or he could have at least gotten the message straight.as for a historical reference. no, it really can't be used as one. as i've discussed in other threads, genesis is simply not written as a history of events, just of cultural mythology. you don't get any real hebrew history until you get to kings/chronicles. and even then, the record is far from complete. and it's blatantly tainted by the fact that it is advancing particular views, and it was a social agenda. where is jehu's defeat by shalmanessar iii?the bible is simply not written to be historical. it's just SET in history.

quote:

---

Where does this come from? It comes from the falsehoods and bad theology that you have been fed.

---

You forgot to state that this is your opinion. It is your opinion that science has not failed to proof there is no god. It has failed and will continue to fail.

quote:

---

Evolution says nothing about God. The majority of believers have no problem with both. The only thing that evolution is any problem for is a minorities interpretation and misunderstanding of the true value of the Bible.

---

Evolution does not determine the value of the bible. Evolution poses no problem for the believer, none of science does. When science says there is no god, then there is a problem. You can see that, can't you?

quote:

---

While I know that there are many who appear to deliberately espouse very poor theology it is surprising that you haven't gotten the true relationship between the sciences and religion sorted out.

---

Bwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!
Your usual cheap shot, Ned. Be watchful of the things you need to sort out for yourself, before you endeavor to make recommendations to me.

quote:

---

The sciences are concerned with the natural world. So science is, by definition, not concerned with God.

---

It is about nothing other than God.

---

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

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 Research".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(Edited to change the word "science" to "research" above)This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-19-2005 10:16 PM

If no one is trying to force a religious view into the science class room what are all the various court cases about then?What does ICR want and why does it exist?It is the unfounded claims that there is scientific support for creationism (the literal, fundamental sort) that some are trying to force into the schools. You aren't claiming that these don't exist are you?I suspect that you think there is actual scientific, observable evidence for creationism and think this should be taught in the science class.I happen to agree that it should be. I have said so in several posts in the 'education' forum. If you wish to pick up on one of those then take the rest of the discussion there.Of course, my reason for wanting some facts about so-called creation "science" taught in the science class room is to show it up for just what it is.

Answers in Genesis is hard at work doing exactly that. You can read it in their articles. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The only thing that evolution is being offered as is as an accurate and predictive model about the history and diversity of life on Earth. It's not a religion. It's not a moral framework. It's not something to worship or live your life by. It's just a scientific model that some people, for reasons that are very difficult to understand, get a big bug up their ass about.