|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Three Kinds of Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4371 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
>>>"I'm an "evolutionist" in the sense that I have accepted the Theory of Evolution. I am not stupid enough to think that poor little me, with no education in Biology, knows enough to tell that all those hundreds of thousands of biologists are all wrong. The same with calling me an "atomist" because I accepted the Atom Theory. I am not stupid enough to think that poor little me, with very, very little education in Physics, knows enough to tell that all those hundreds of thousands of Physicists are all wrong."<<<
I do not disagree with all the principles of biology and physics either. At the same time, I do not accept everything Darwin said as the 'gospel'. Nor do I reject all of his tenets. >>>"No, saying the earth is 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous because ALL the scientific evidence we have indicate that the earth is way older than that."<<< Agreed. >>>"Untrue. I would accept a "new earth theory (whatever that is)", if all the evidence we have indicate a "new earth (whatever that is)".<<< My understanding of the 'new earth theory' is that it is a concept that some fundamental Christians adhere to. Which means the earth was 'created' during the chronology of the Genesis account, therefore, it cannot be older than 5000-6000 years old. My op was addressed to those who accept this as the only possibility and reject any scientific evidence that shows otherwise. >>>"I didn't have the laws of thermodynamics in mind when I accepted that the earth is much, much more than 5000-6000 years old. I used all the available physical evidence to get to an educated conclusion about the age of the earth."<<< I had the fundamentalists' idea of ex nihilo creation in mind when I made that statement. I do not believe that something can be created out of nothing, but I should have articulated my thoughts better. >>>"Let me give you a little advice: making false statements about what other people (who you don't even know) will or won't do doesn't make you a bridgebuilder. I can think of more unpleasant , but very accurate terms in describing people who attempt that."<<< It was not my intention to make false statements about anyone, known or unknown to me. I am making a personal bridge for me to cross, and whether others follow, well, that is their prerogative. However, that was good, sound advice. Making false statements, the usage of ad hominids, straw-man arguments, red herrings, or etc., etc., will not advance the truth no matter which side of the fence we are on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi bridgebuilder,
Let me repeat this ... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy alternatively type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. I generally use the latter format for quoting from a linked article and the former format for replies. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4371 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
>>>"I'll say that you got this right, The Genesis 1 creation account starts with the Primordial Ocean of Middle Eastern Creation myths. A view completely at odds with the reality shown to us by science.
And this is why anyone hoping to build a bridge between science and religion must recognise that religion includes myths, and myths cannot be taken as accurate accounts of what happened."<<< Please explain why science does not believe in a Primordial Ocean when life first began on planet Earth? I thought water and the basic biological matter that would likely occur in an such an ocean was necessary to begin and sustain life, whether one believes in the creationism version of the origins of life, or that life resulted from a random, chance consequence of the big bang. I may not get back to you today, but I will respond when I'm able to do so. Yes, I agree that some religions include myths, but some also contain many truths (some more than others). Science has its truths and falsehoods also. It changes continually with new discoveries, and previously regarded facts become 'myths' and are rightfully discarded, albeit, at times, with much kicking and screaming if the new discoveries disagree with well established think tanks. That is why some brilliant scientists are ridiculed throughout their lives, cannot get their works published, etc., and are not vindicated until after their death. Therefore, there are many factions in the scientific community, not unlike the religious one, battling over their differing tenets, even now. I will admit that at least they are striving to learn more and more while on the other hand, there are many (NOT ALL) on the religious side of the proverbial fence that are somewhat to outright lackadaisical in their attitude about contemplating scientific discoveries. I don't believe the truth or the true 'theory of everything' will ever be discovered until science and spirituality reconcile their differences. Edited by bridgebuilder, : typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4371 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
Thank you for the posting tips I will try to comply with them. It does make responses more coherent when the quotes are formatted properly
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I think that you fail to grasp the concept of the Primordial Ocean as opposed to A primordial ocean. Or even understand that Genesis 1 has no concept of the planet Earth. Science accepts that there were primordial oceans prior to the appearance of life, but only after liquid water accumulated sufficiently. The Primordial Ocean, however, is the idea of the Ocean as the only physically existing thing - no planets, no stars, no life, except perhaps for some god or gods.
quote: I'm using myth in it's full sense here, not just as a synonym for falsehood. Many have written on myths as a way of conveying truths - just not those obtained by a superficial, literal, reading.
quote: I think that you will find that that is a rare occurrence. Witness, for instance, the success of Einstein with Relativity, and the pioneers of Quantum Theory (which Einstein helped lay the foundations for). You may have Wegener in mind, but don't forget that his ideas had problems that were not solved until later. On the other hand, even great scientists can come to fallacious views and those are rarely accepted on authority. Science is far from perfect, but it works. I'm not so sure that religion works nearly so well when it comes to any sort of knowledge at all.
quote: I think the more significant point is that it is scientific discoveries that you expect the religious to react to. Not religious discoveries. Religion does not really have any method of discovery to match that of science.
quote: The question here, is what does "spirituality" have to offer science ?And what concessions is science expected to make for these alleged benefits ? I hope that you're not proposing something as crude as science having to accept some religious beliefs just for the sake of compromise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
I do not disagree with all the principles of biology and physics either. At the same time, I do not accept everything Darwin said as the 'gospel'. Nor do I reject all of his tenets.
It appears that you are still viewing science, and by extension the theory of evolution, as a religion. It isn't. You really need to get over this. Darwin is not the equivalent of the Apostle Paul or the gospel writer Luke. We don't revere Darwin's words and assume they are inerrant. We hold Darwin in high esteem because he discovered some of the important mechanisms in the process of evolution. In fact, Alfred Russel Wallace had discovered the same mechanisms at about the same time Darwin did, and they published about the same time. The accuracy of the theory of evolution does not hinge on "Because Darwin said so". It hinges on the EVIDENCE. That is what separates scientific theories from religious beliefs. Biologists accept the theory of evolution because the evidence has supported it, not because Darwin said so. Frankly, who cares what Darwin said (and some of it is wrong). What matters is what the EVIDENCE says. That is what you should be focusing on. You say that you accept the principles of biology, and yet evolution is one of the principles of biology. In the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". What he says is true. Why do bats have three middle ear bones while birds only have one? Why don't you find a single species with teats and feathers? The observations made in biology are tied together by the theory of evolution. There is simply no way around it.
It was not my intention to make false statements about anyone, known or unknown to me. I am making a personal bridge for me to cross, and whether others follow, well, that is their prerogative. You are building a bridge built on untruths. If you build a bridge based on the idea that the theory of evolution is a religion then I don't see why anyone should follow you. In fact, I would hope that they do not. You also seem to be building a bridge that forces people to choose between reality and religion. For example: "There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being" Really? So what happens when people are confronted with the mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution? You are forcing people to reject reality in order to believe in a Higher Being. That seems like a no win situation. Why would you do that? It is like forcing people to reject the science of meteorology in order to accept that God creates lightning. Further on you say: ". . . or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe." If you want to build a bridge here then you need to supply evidence that would allow us to consider a Higher Being. We could consider the possibility that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun in the same orbit with Mars, but what is the use of considering possibilities? What we are interested in is how reality works, not what we can dream up. This seems to be a common theme amongst creationists. They want us to "consider possibilities". Why? What compelling evidence is there for these possibilities? If none, then it belongs in the same pile as all other unevidenced possibilities. Once you have some evidence, then we can talk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 344 days) Posts: 242 Joined:
|
bb writes: I do not accept everything Darwin said as the 'gospel' Neither do the biologists who post here. Nor do any of the other folks you refer to as 'evolutionists'. I suggest you get up to speed on the advances science has made over the last 150+ years. If you really pay attention to what you read here, you would benefit greatly. These people here are pretty smart! And some of them are actually theists, too, so you'd be in good company.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0
|
Hi bridgebuilder and welcome to EvC,
Please explain why science does not believe in a Primordial Ocean when life first began on planet Earth? I don't think you're making a valid comparison here. The primordial ocean of Genesis is not merely the beginning of the Earth, it's the beginning of everything. As PaulK notes, Genesis does not contain the concept of a planet. The authors seem to have imagined their world to be pretty much all there is. They did not have enough information to realise their place within a wider universe. As far a Genesis is concerned, the primordial ocean and the spirit of God moving over the waters is all that there is at the very beginning. It is also worth noting that in Genesis, the land comes after the waters. In reality, the Earth had no oceans during its earliest history, they only formed later on. So the Bible has water then land, the evidence says land, then water. It's not as good a match as you're making it out to be. A more valid comparison would be to compare the early universe to the beginning of Genesis. The early universe in Genesis is a primordial ocean. The evidence however tells us that, in reality, water could not even have existed in the early universe. Again, it's not a good match. If you want to build bridges, you need them to have good foundations. I think that any reasonable foundation has to accept that whatever truths the Book of Genesis might contain, none of them are found in its take on cosmology or biology. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4371 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
PaulK writes: I think that you fail to grasp the concept of the Primordial Ocean as opposed to A primordial ocean. Or even understand that Genesis 1 has no concept of the planet Earth. Thank you for pointing out the difference between the "Primordial Ocean" and the "primordial ocean." I was unaware of this. Genesis does not include the term primordial ocean, whether beginning with upper or lower cases, yet it does present the concept that a body of water is necessary to precede life. Therefore, I disagree with your last statement, but it is a matter of interpretation (IMO).
PaulK writes: I think that you will find that that is a rare occurrence. Witness, for instance, the success of Einstein with Relativity, and the pioneers of Quantum Theory (which Einstein helped lay the foundations for). You may have Wegener in mind, but don't forget that his ideas had problems that were not solved until later. On the other hand, even great scientists can come to fallacious views and those are rarely accepted on authority. Science is far from perfect, but it works. I'm not so sure that religion works nearly so well when it comes to any sort of knowledge at all. I think it is a common occurrence. Most new breakthroughs or new truths are faced with much opposition before becoming something that is accepted as self evident. In the past few centuries, religion was the main source of this opposition, and as a result, made the science and religion communities rivals. Now some scientists face opposition among the science community, or the 'authorities' rather, if a new concept disproves their currently believed 'facts'. At least these authorities do not burn the opposing scientists at the stake or behead them over their opposing views like the Inquisitors would have gladly done However, both approaches are capable of blocking knowledge from coming to light, though one is guilty of employing much more brutal methods. As far as religion offering science anything, no, it can't offer science anything in the means of a conventional, rigorous scientific method to discover new knowledge. Nevertheless, why discount it altogether, or "ignore" it (as an earlier poster put it), because it is an unconventional source of inspiration? Kekul figured out how benzene molecules were constructed by imagining snakes swallowing their own tails. Not exactly a conventional method. Many early scientists (and some modern ones) were religious in the sense that they believed in a God and wanted to unravel the mysteries of creation. Sir Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, and this arcane 'science' formed the basis of modern chemistry. Perhaps the Emerald Tablets still contain valuable insights that are ignored by modern scientists, or perhaps not. They apparently helped Newton. The Mayas had incredibly accurate calendars and advanced knowledge of astronomy as well as the Egyptians, who built structures, yet modern scientists are still challenged with figuring out their engineering feats. They were also religious societies. Some Buddists can seemingly levitate when in deep meditation, but since it can't explained in a pure scientific manner, it is debunked as trickery or an illusion. Religion cannot offer insights in the manner conventional science demands. Yet scientific knowledge has developed from inexplicable means in the past. Religion isn't perfect either, and when radical, fundamentalists reject science as whole and cling to only their religious faith, it doesn't work at all. I will give science that.
PaulK writes: I think the more significant point is that it is scientific discoveries that you expect the religious to react to. Not religious discoveries. Religion does not really have any method of discovery to match that of science. True in a conventional sense.
PaulK writes: The question here, is what does "spirituality" have to offer science ?And what concessions is science expected to make for these alleged benefits ? I hope that you're not proposing something as crude as science having to accept some religious beliefs just for the sake of compromise. No, there is no need to have to blindly accept beliefs, just the possibility. That the unexplainable world of faith can be a way to attain knowledge about the natural world and have some merit despite that it remains unexplainable. The only compromise is perhaps science should become a little agnostic. Perhaps that is crude in your estimation. It think it would be mutually beneficial, though I strongly doubt you would agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Thank you for pointing out the difference between the "Primordial Ocean" and the "primordial ocean." I was unaware of this. Genesis does not include the term primordial ocean, whether beginning with upper or lower cases, yet it does present the concept that a body of water is necessary to precede life. Therefore, I disagree with your last statement, but it is a matter of interpretation (IMO). It also doesn't say that Eve had two boobs, but its fair to infer that. The Cosmic Ocean is common theme in middle eastern creation myths, we don't need the Bible to contain those exact words to get the picture.
Nevertheless, why discount it altogether, or "ignore" it (as an earlier poster put it), because it is an unconventional source of inspiration? Look at it this way: Science is trying to figure out all the things that happen inside this box. "but what about this thing outside of the box", you might ask. Well, get it into the box and it'll be looked at, until then, it ain't in the box of things we're looking at. The source of inspiration doesn't even come into play.
Kekul figured out how benzene molecules were constructed by imagining snakes swallowing their own tails. Not exactly a conventional method. From wiki:
quote:emphasis added Many early scientists (and some modern ones) were religious in the sense that they believed in a God and wanted to unravel the mysteries of creation. Sir Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, and this arcane 'science' formed the basis of modern chemistry. Perhaps the Emerald Tablets still contain valuable insights that are ignored by modern scientists, or perhaps not. They apparently helped Newton. The Mayas had incredibly accurate calendars and advanced knowledge of astronomy as well as the Egyptians, who built structures, yet modern scientists are still challenged with figuring out their engineering feats. They were also religious societies. Some Buddists can seemingly levitate when in deep meditation, but since it can't explained in a pure scientific manner, it is debunked as trickery or an illusion I know what you mean, and sometimes it seems like science-ists are against these ideas (and sometimes they are), but for the science, its not really an outright rejection like you're making it out to be. Like I said, get 'em into the box and they'll be treated like any other. Re: To PaulK I just cut that from the subtitle. That info is in the top-right of each message and is redundant.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "top-left" to "top-right" in the last sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I don't see how the conclusion can be avoided. Genesis 1 starts with the ocean and God as the only things existing. Everything else - not just life - comes later. Genesis 1 doesn't say that the ocean is necessary to precede life (it doesn't even imply it) but it does have the ocean existing before creation.
quote: Really ? How many great scientists have had their work rejected by the scientific community only to be vindicated after their death ? Or better, how many can you name ? There are reasons why science is conservative - to block bad ideas. And there are many which deserve to be blocked, and I think that they are rather more numerous.
quote: Why care about the source of inspiration at all ? I don't think that science does. The source of inspiration isn't the point - it's the work developing that inspiration from a mere idea to a strongly supported conclusion that counts.
quote: And I think you will find that it is the entirely conventional work that Kekul did following up that inspiration was the important thing. And that is how it should be.
quote: But the magical parts of alchemy don't seem to work, or to have benefited Newton. The advanced astronomy of the Egyptians and the Maya is the product of observation - i.e. through methods that modern science can duplicate or better even with the technology available to the ancients (ignoring modern problems like light pollution !). And amazing as some of the structures of the ancient world are, it seems to be more a matter of figuring out their techniques than anything special. (And the "Yogic flying" of TM is quite amusing to watch, and impressive in it's way, but again nothing that indicates that religion offers any deeper insights that science needs).
quote: If you want to claim that faith can be a valid way of attaining knowledge then I think that you are going to have to do more than just claim that it should be accepted. It looks to me as if faith is more a way of obscuring knowledge than attaining it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
As far as religion offering science anything, no, it can't offer science anything in the means of a conventional, rigorous scientific method to discover new knowledge. Nevertheless, why discount it altogether, or "ignore" it (as an earlier poster put it), because it is an unconventional source of inspiration? Kekul figured out how benzene molecules were constructed by imagining snakes swallowing their own tails. Not exactly a conventional method. Certainly you can get your ideas wherever you like. You can draw them out of a hat, though I wouldn't recommend it. But then there's the business of finding out if they're true or not. If Kekul had stopped at dreaming of snakes, his name wouldn't be in the chemistry textbooks. After inspiration, the scientific method.
I think it is a common occurrence. Most new breakthroughs or new truths are faced with much opposition before becoming something that is accepted as self evident. In the past few centuries, religion was the main source of this opposition, and as a result, made the science and religion communities rivals. Now some scientists face opposition among the science community, or the 'authorities' rather, if a new concept disproves their currently believed 'facts'. Well, this is how it's meant to work. If there was no opposition to new ideas, we'd believe all sorts of things, most of them wrong and many of them mutually contradictory. A rigorous program of skepticism is required as a filter on our ideas, if we want to end up believing true things rather than false ones. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
The only compromise is perhaps science should become a little agnostic. In what way could science be MORE agnostic than it already is. Science currently makes absolutely no statements or predictions about religion or the supernatural beings that religions present. Science, in fact, completely ignores the supernatural because... it's supernatural. The only time there is a conflict is when someone's religion tells them something which is factually incorrect. Science doesn't care WHICH religion is wrong, it doesn't care about the implications of the incorrect statement. Science just backs reality. Every time, all the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
brigebuilder writes: This is where you make a huge mistake. Darwin is not taken as gospel by scientists. In fact, his ideas have been and still are thoroughly tested by thousands of scientists all over the world. Some of his ideas have actually been found wrong. Furthermore, his theory has been altered as new evidence came along. This certainly doesn’t sound as if it is taken as gospel. I do not disagree with all the principles of biology and physics either. At the same time, I do not accept everything Darwin said as the 'gospel'. Nor do I reject all of his tenets.bridgebuilder writes: That is called Young Earth Creationism. My understanding of the 'new earth theory' is that it is a concept that some fundamental Christians adhere to. Which means the earth was 'created' during the chronology of the Genesis account, therefore, it cannot be older than 5000-6000 years old. My op was addressed to those who accept this as the only possibility and reject any scientific evidence that shows otherwise.bridgebuilder writes: You see, bridgebuilder, science does not work on beliefs. It works on evidence. If it can be demonstrated by physical evidence that something can or could be created out of nothing, it would be accepted. Regardless of what beliefs are. I had the fundamentalists' idea of ex nihilo creation in mind when I made that statement. I do not believe that something can be created out of nothing, but I should have articulated my thoughts better.bridgebuilder writes: Thanks for this and please stay on this forum. It was not my intention to make false statements about anyone, known or unknown to me. I am making a personal bridge for me to cross, and whether others follow, well, that is their prerogative. However, that was good, sound advice. Making false statements, the usage of ad hominids, straw-man arguments, red herrings, or etc., etc., will not advance the truth no matter which side of the fence we are on. Some people want to learn new things. From my experience here, it seems as if the majority of people are here to learn. I’ve learned a lot since coming to this forum. My knowledge on biology and physics, for example, started from basically non-existent to knowing a little bit. The teachers were experts on that subject and shared their knowledge for free on this forum. Taking courses on those subjects would have cost me a lot of money. The way to learn and also to teach your knowledge to other people is to avoid false statements, ad hominims, straw-man arguments, red herrings, etc. People who deliberately do those things loose respect very quickly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
bridgebuilder writes: Thank you for pointing out the difference between the "Primordial Ocean" and the "primordial ocean." I was unaware of this. Genesis does not include the term primordial ocean, whether beginning with upper or lower cases, yet it does present the concept that a body of water is necessary to precede life. Therefore, I disagree with your last statement, but it is a matter of interpretation (IMO). For what it's worth, I'm not aware of "the Primordial Ocean" being a non-ambiguous Genesis reference either. Wikipedia takes you to the article on abiogenesis when you enter "Primordial Ocean", though of course it ignores capitalization. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024