What I have noticed about these debates...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Direct ridiculing is pretty rare in universities I agree but I've seen it and definitely in research seminars.

---

Hi TB,
Out of curiosity, was this in Australia or elsewhere? I am not surprised that creationism would be dealt with harshly by scientists. I would be surprised if the topic of creationism even came up at a research seminar much less a course on evolution and pop. gen. My personal recollections (don't claim they are representative) was struggling to calculate allele frequencies in polyploid species and arguing over which phylogenetic methods are best (which gets pretty nasty)...I did not even know there was a creationist "movement" in America until a few years ago when the Kansas board of education issue came up.

Let's take an informal poll of people here who've received college degrees, me first:

Biology was not required in my program, hence no mention of either evolution or Creationism. But I first heard of Creationism while in college from several friends who were evangelicals. So I guess I could argue that while in college I heard nothing at all about evolution, and only positive things about Creationism.

​

I had biology freshman year of high school. Evolution was touched on briefly, Creationism was never mentioned.

--Percy

Okay, I'll bite. I'll pretty much have to recuse myself on the evolution side - ecology's bound fairly tightly to the ToE. However, from what I very vaguely remember from high school biology in the mid-'70s, evolution was barely mentioned. Abiogenesis, OTOH, was something more or less mentioned only in passing even in college (in organic chem, IIRC, while they were beating us over the head with how carbon bonds form, etc). I didn't start becoming interested in it until '98 or so. Creationism (the carpet chewing variety) I didn't even know existed until two years ago - when I got shanghaied into the debate... It assuredly was never even an idle consideration in school.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Let's take an informal poll of people here who've received college degrees

---

Okey dokey.I don't recall any discussion of creationism as a scientific theory, certainly not enough mention to qualify as ridicule. It just didn't come up. My biology, by the way, was mostly in the context of archealogy and anthropology-- forensic archealogy, cultural ecology, human evolutionary development, that sort of thing.God and creation did show up quite a bit in my Philosophy courses but that is a different animal altogether.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Thanks for posting these tables, Percy!Yes those are exactly the stats I was talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Direct ridiculing is pretty rare in universities I agree but I've seen it and definitely in research seminars.

---

I have to say, though, that in Biology or Geology circles, why wouldn't Creation "science" be ridiculed just like claims of free energy machines would be ridiculed in physics, or claims of being able to turn lead into gold in chemistry, or claims of proof of alien abduction or Psychic ability in Psychology?

I took a pretty Biology-intensive major at my small liberal arts college, although it was specialized to concentrate on mammals and later, Equines. I had Intro to Biology in my freshman year and it was a difficult course, but I loved it and, if I can say, got one of only two A's given in the class. Then I had a whole year of Mammilian Anatomy and Physiology, followed by Equine Health, Equine Nutrition, Equine Exercise Physiology, Feeds and Feeding, Equine Lameness, etc.I didn't know anything about the creationist movement until I took an eye-opening course entitled "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry", one of the 8 or so core liberal arts classes that everyone had to take.We talked about all kinds of pseudoscience and anti-science, including some basic logic and debate tactics and fallacies. Creationism was in there, but only as part of a much larger group of non-scientific beliefs.I didn't really "get into" the whole issue until I met who was to be my husband. Yuo all know him here as Zhimbo. He was a Cognitive Neuroscience undergrad at a different liberal arts university (Oberlin) and happened to be interested in the issue. HE actually borrowed my textbooks from the above-mentioned class to teach an Experimental College class called "The Fringes of Science".Through him, I heard about more detail about philosophical skepticism, and the seed of interest in science, skepticism, and this debate which had been planted a few years before in that class, germinated.For the record, Creationism wasn't singled out or really even ridiculed, even in "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry" class. It was just explained to us how it was not scientific, but religious in nature.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-06-2002]

Probability items with associated consequences:1)Bible is true and I reject it -- I miss out entirely.
2)Bible is false and I reject it -- Big deal, probably no afterlife anyway.
3)Bible is true and I accept it -- Good, I'm saved.
4)Bible is false and I accept it -- Big deal, probably no afterlife anyway, also most other religions not exclusive.From a strictly mercenary, probabilistic, gambler's viewpoint, the smart choice is to bet on the Bible being true. You could be a Christian and still wind up with 1,2, or 4 the same as anybody else. But a person who has rejected Christ's offer of eternal life won't get door #3.God talks to Christians through the Bible, through fellowship with other Christians, and through the Holy Spirit (who Christ tells us indwells every Christian and is a source of wisdom).[This message has been edited by zipzip, 12-06-2002]

I first studied college level biology at State college where evolution was considered a matter of fact. I openly and vocally ridiculed the idea (I was raised creationist and had attended church operated High Schools). The professors at State college were tolerant and compassionate but I was not persuaded to their opinion.Later, joyfully enrolled in a Christian College, I found myself horrified at what passed for Creation Science. My poignant questions were apparently embarrassing and I was soon alienated from my major professor who happened to be head of the department. I lost all confidence in so-called "scientific" creationism and began to consider the implications of an opposing point of view.Since then I have witnessed the repressive, anti-intellectual nature of the denomination in which I was raised. I have taken the tools I received with which to study the Bible and attempted to understand it for myself. I have exercised the investigative method which I was taught in theological, biological, and other disciplines, and applied it to this question. And I have become convinced that -a. - No one really knows what happened in the beginning of the universe, andb. - Bible writers apparently agree with me.It seems that creationism is built upon a number of assumptions which are unsupportable from holy scripture.And yes, never once did an evolutionist professor belittle me or my pet belief in the god of creation. I am sorry that I cannot say the same for creationists following my dissent from that view. db

quote:

---

1)Bible is true and I reject it -- I miss out entirely.
2)Bible is false and I reject it -- Big deal, probably no afterlife anyway.
3)Bible is true and I accept it -- Good, I'm saved.
4)Bible is false and I accept it -- Big deal, probably no afterlife anyway, also most other religions not exclusive.

​

From a strictly mercenary, probabilistic, gambler's viewpoint, the smart choice is to bet on the Bible being true. You could be a Christian and still wind up with 1,2, or 4 the same as anybody else. But a person who has rejected Christ's offer of eternal life won't get door #3.

---

Seems a bit obvious, but you can just as easily replace "Bible" in the above, with "Koran", "Tibetan Book of the Dead", "Invisible Pink Unicorn" etcAnd if we change the grammar slightly you can use "There is a God who will send you to hell if you believe in him" and come up with a completely opposite conclusion to the one you reach.And all this is before even getting to the fact that having led a religious life you don't lose much (4) may be untrue for some e.g Michael Shermer, for one.Unfortunately, being mercenary doesn't help you out here as you have no mechanism to determine the probabilities. Try another tack.Incidentally, are you aware of the Atheist's Wager? PE

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
Probability items with associated consequences:

​

1)Bible is true and I reject it -- I miss out entirely.
2)Bible is false and I reject it -- Big deal, probably no afterlife anyway.
3)Bible is true and I accept it -- Good, I'm saved.
4)Bible is false and I accept it -- Big deal, probably no afterlife anyway, also most other religions not exclusive.

---

How about -5) Bible is a Jewish book and I accept that -- Good, I'm informed.

quote:

---

From a strictly mercenary, probabilistic, gambler's viewpoint, the smart choice is to bet on the Bible being true.

---

From a strictly sensible viewpoint, an all powerful, all knowing and everywhere present deity does not need ancient Jews to take dictation for modern Christians.
---------(I find it interesting that you consider the mercenary viewpoint!)---------

quote:

---

God talks to Christians through the Bible, ...

---

There.
That's what I'm talking about.
Ya know what I mean?db

MammuthusIn a research seminar in Australia we recently (this year) had 'Of course some people don't believe in evoltuion but here is the sequence alignment' (as if that proved anything) with associated giggles from the audience. I'm not claiming any worse than that.Of course at the departmental coffee table admision of creationism is about equal to admitting belief in a flat earth. Evolution has been accepted mainstream as fact. Anything else is treated as pseudo-science and thus, understandably, ridicule. I hate seudo-science myself of course. Some creatinists are scientifically complete crackpots (I wont comment on their spiritual state). You can judge me yourselves.

Hi TB [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
MammuthusIn a research seminar in Australia we recently (this year) had 'Of course some people don't believe in evoltuion but here is the sequence alignment' (as if that proved anything) with associated giggles from the audience. I'm not claiming any worse than that.M: Ok, I thought you meant that there was institutionalized ridicule of religion in an evolution program which would have surprised me. As you can see from the other posts in this thread on this topic, most of us were not aware of the conflict until relatively recently and our courses in college did not even cover the debate.TB:
Of course at the departmental coffee table admision of creationism is about equal to admitting belief in a flat earth. Evolution has been accepted mainstream as fact. Anything else is treated as pseudo-science and thus, understandably, ridicule. I hate seudo-science myself of course. Some creatinists are scientifically complete crackpots (I wont comment on their spiritual state).M: I am glad you see it that way. However, we have had this debate several times and I will raise it again. What do you see is different about the acceptance by the scientific community of evolution and say the theory of gravity or any other mainstream science? Evolution does not make your god impossible though it does make a literal interpretation of the bible impossible. To be fair, this entire site should be labelled Abiogenesis vs Creationism. Where you have come into conflict on this board (including with me) is when you as a structural biologist start proposing impossible scenarios i.e. "kinds" hyperspeciating after the great flood to fit the world into your religion. I doubt you do that when you are working on structural biological issues that are not particularly relevant to evolutionary principles. Most theistic evolutionists do not appear to take the bible (or any religious text) literally and therefore are not in conflict with evolutionary science even though they believe in a creator.TB:
You can judge me yourselves.M: As I see it I am not here to judge you personally. I find that you have been consistently one of the nicest, least offensive, and most responsive people on the board. I attack some of your statements and try to support my counterpoints. But am not judging you or condemning you personally.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
Probability items with associated consequences:

​

1)Bible is true and I reject it -- I miss out entirely.
2)Bible is false and I reject it -- Big deal, probably no afterlife anyway.
3)Bible is true and I accept it -- Good, I'm saved.
4)Bible is false and I accept it -- Big deal, probably no afterlife anyway, also most other religions not exclusive.

​

From a strictly mercenary, probabilistic, gambler's viewpoint, the smart choice is to bet on the Bible being true. You could be a Christian and still wind up with 1,2, or 4 the same as anybody else. But a person who has rejected Christ's offer of eternal life won't get door #3.

​

God talks to Christians through the Bible, through fellowship with other Christians, and through the Holy Spirit (who Christ tells us indwells every Christian and is a source of wisdom).

​

[This message has been edited by zipzip, 12-06-2002]

---

I have no interest in, not ability to induce, belief in God "just in case".The thing is, I was raised to believe in a Christian God. I gradually came to an Agnostic viewpoint after realizing that EVERYONE who was religious had just as much conviction that they were right as every other person, and they couldn't ALL be right.I don't know if God exists or not, but if so, I would hope that he/she/it would not be so petty as to have required me to follow a dogma which has been altered and administered by humans. I would hope that he/she/it would be glad that I came to the perfectly logical and intellectually-honest answer of the Agnostic, "I don't know."It would seem a sick and cruel God to plunk me into eternal suffering because I did not massage her/his/it's ego, even though I have lived a good life.

quote:

---

And all this is before even getting to the fact that having led a religious life you don't lose much (4) may be untrue for some e.g Michael Shermer, for one.

---

I, too, think that one potentially loses much by leading a religious life. I have known many religious people who are afraid of reading certain books, of seeing certain movies, of listening to certain kinds of music, of eating certain kinds of food, of looking at certain kinds of art, of thinking certain thoughts.I am not talking about porn or anything terribly violent or anything. I am talking about fear of anything that might challenge the way they think about anything.I think that many religions are quite stifling to the intellect and to the experience of life.In the case of women, this is often much more the case. It is specifically stated by the US Southern Baptists that women must be submissive to their men if they are to be good Christians.This screams of oppression and is a move to crush the spirit of women. This is offesnive to anyone who consideres women to be human beings.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-09-2002]