Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

Hi Mystic,There's no need to oppose everything that's said regardless of whether you have an effective or even an appropriate response. The discussion is in danger of become nonsensical. The issue isn't one of ancient persecutions but of contemporary tolerance for beliefs that are loony in anything other than a religious context. Please address yourself to the actual point. If the Bible were scientifically accurate, i.e., agreed with current scientific theory, then creationists would not be forced to contrive alternative "scientific" views. I'm not making wild generalizations, but merely identifying the motivating force for the creationist movement, namely broad disagreement of literal Biblical interpretations with modern science. There can be no dispute about this. Creationism wouldn't even exist were it not for these disagreements. You've either missed or ignored the point, which had nothing to do with Islam itself as a religion. The point was that the introduction of anti-scientific theologies into influential religions can bring entire cultures crashing down into a dark ages, which seems precisely what evangelical Christianity is trying to do in the United States today. I think you might be better served to go off and marshal your facts rather than giving voice to your frustration. You're response has little to do with my point about the threat of anti-scientific thinking to our culture, and introducing Newton into the argument does not support your viewpoint.Creationism has not made even a single scientific contribution. If you think otherwise then I suggest you spend some time trying to find some of those contributions, and until you do to stop accusing me of making wild generalizations. Creationism makes no scientific contributions because it rejects rather than embraces science. Creationism is defined by what it is against, which is evolution specifically and science generally (old earth from geology, big bang from cosmology, etc.), and it is defined by what it is for, which is endeavoring to persuade people despite the absence of evidence of a literal interpretation of the Bible.Newton was not a creationist in the sense of the word as we use it here (the term likely did not exist at the time), and he was definitely pro-science and pro-math, which as not the case with al-Ghazali, the Arab cleric most responsible for the Arab dark ages that still envelopes them. But Newton was a devout Christian who accepted that God had created man and the universe. In fact, it was his religious views that prevented him from making more discoveries than he did. He discovered how gravity kept the planets in the orbits around the sun and the moon in its orbit around the earth, but when it came to taking into account how the planets remained in their orbits despite the tugs from other planets he could only conclude that it was the work of a grand designer, which you can think of either as God or as the intelligent designer of the modern ID movement.Had Newton not been blinded by his God answer he would have discovered perturbation theory to explain the stability of planetary orbits, since it involved math that was well within the intellectual means of the inventor of calculus. It was LaPlace who developed perturbation theory about a century later. In other words, Newton is a prime example of religious belief blocking scientific progress.--Percy

Are you saying that this "other side" doesn't know what science really is? And why must there be an other side, anyway?

​

The definition that Percy gave in message#111 was a good one, in my opinion. I don't see why there is a rift.

Yes it is only those branches of Christianity that insist that their interpretations of the Bible must override scientific findings that are the problem. Most Christian denominatiosn can live quite happily with science - including the Old Earth and evolution. And if you know anything about the history of science then you must know that science has changed significantly even since Darwin's day, let alone the 9th Century AD, a thousand years earlier.The only funny thing is your attempt to distract from the fact that you actually thought that Islam wasn't a significant force in Arab society before the 12th century AD.

The original point was that anti-science forces that co-opt an influential religion like Islam can bring down a civilization. Mocking skepticism is not valid rebuttal. Please address the original point.--Percy

No, it's just a flat out wrong statement as near as I can tell. There's ancient persecution, there are people suffering persecution today. There have been, and continue to be, debates within the Catholic church itself. Transubstantiation was one of the things that Luther disagreed about. Religion is not sheltered from internal criticism, it is not sheltered from criticism on this forum, it's not sheltered from criticism in the various media, it's not sheltered from criticism in 'Beyond belief' seminars. You want to accept the conclusion so you are not critical about the premise.

Ah, my bad. you did say "is there any force IN THE WEST" so you're covered. But I'm one guy against a small mob here, so it's a little hard to keep straight what the original point may have been. This really has been enlightening, I didn't know there was a whole sociological story about the evils of religion ganging up on the scientists. I'm getting a little dizzy between "the definition of science changes" and "Ali-somebody destroyed Arab science in AD 1100)" and resisting the urge to just bust out laughing at the insanity of it all (I don't mean laugh at you, it's just all a bit surreal like an acid trip starting to get out of hand)

Hi Mystic,You've misconstrued the argument. No one said anything about Christian persecution or criticism of Christian beliefs. It's about tolerance for looniness. Let me try again.If you believed that pouring milk on your breakfast cereal and mumbling a few words would turn it into the body of Julius Caesar, then you *have* truly lost your mind. But if you believe that saying a few words over a wafer at mass transforms it into the body of Jesus Christ, then you're just Catholic.The former belief is judged crazy within our society, while the latter is judged just a normal religious belief. The point is that religious claims should not prevent us from passing judgment on belief. If the belief that pouring milk on cereal will turn it into the body of Julius Caesar is lunacy, then belief that the wafer at mass becomes the body of Jesus Christ is also lunacy.But that isn't the judgment we make. We instead judge the Julius Caesar believer crazy, but the Jesus Christ believer Catholic. And we make that judgment because the Catholic does not stand in isolation but is a member of a rather large body of Catholics who all believe the same thing. By way of membership in a larger community of similar believers the Catholic escapes the judgment of lunacy that he would otherwise deserve.In other words, as well described in the classic book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, lunacy can take over large groups, and the size of the group prevents it from the norms of criticism to which it might otherwise be subject.But the Catholic sacrament is just a familiar example. Evangelical Christians believe a number of equally loony things, such as that if you call something science then it is science, or that science isn't the study of the natural world, or that there's no evidence for evolution or an ancient earth, or that scientists just make up data (since it's all made up I guess all the scientists just get together at a secret conference every year and hold a lottery to see who wins the Nobel Prize). Such beliefs display an appalling ignorance of science, both of its practice and its details.The argument being made in some quarters is that in order for our culture to protect itself from fates like those that overtook the Islamic world that we must confront irrational religious beliefs. I'm definitely not convinced that confrontation is the right approach, and I'm not even sure that a right approach exists. Like the gentle giants of the Thomas Covenant series of Stephen R. Donaldson (are his books still read?), we may be driven into inaction by sheer dismay at the power of the forces of ignorance.--Percy

Hi Mystic,I don't know how familiar you are with history, but most people are aware that there have been many great civilizations across the centuries, and none have lasted longer than a few centuries. History is not a joke. Santayana was not kidding about doom and the lessons of history. The European dark ages lasted a thousand years, and the Islamic dark ages endure still. Is the western world now somehow immune to the forces of cultural and societal decay? I wouldn't bet on it.If you think what I'm saying is an eye opener, just listen to Neil Tyson's talk at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference: I think you need to go off and do something else for a while. Most of your responses are content-free expressions of either rejection or amazed disbelief. You seem completely unaware of quite an awful lot. We'd be glad to fill you in (not so you can believe it, just so you can know about it and discuss it instead of just saying, "Get a grip!"), but we can't do that or discuss very much while your primary reaction is rejection.--Percy

Yes, they are still quite popular, and we are awaiting the second volume in the third and final trilogy of the Unbeliever's Chronicles.Perhaps it is also relevant to recall that we learn from Thomas Covenant that evil can never be destroyed, only perpetually resisted, and that it was the cleansing laughter of the last giant in The Land--and Covenant's refusal to destory Lord Foul--that carried the day in the climactic scene of the first trilogy.And, yes, I'm a fan.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I had been working on a response to how you just want to dust off Harris' mistaken assertion that religion is sheltered from criticism. But I guess I should go off and do something else for a while. You apparently don't want to talk to anybody who disagrees with you. I reject what you say when I think it's wrong, but you are so cocky that you can't conceive of an honest disagreement to your enlightened mind. This is the second time you've invited me to leave your forum, so I guess I will do just that. No, I think I'll pass. The first phrase you quoted from it was nonsense and you made no attempt to defend it. I already have a church, thank you very much.

Why don't you join one of the specific threads about evolution or geology if you think these ideas are bunk. If you want to talk about the specifics of why evolution is a valid scientific theory then any number of threads a a great place to start.If you want to help nemesis_juggernaut in the Great Debate thread he seemingly has abandoned then dive in.You seemingly want specifics and the specifics are there in the appropriate threads. I think a lot of evolutionists in this thread have been reluctant to drag this thread off topic to honor some of your more broad requests. If you take it to the right venue, you may get what you want and we all can have fun in a good debate at the same time.This topic is more of a meta-issue about the controversy than anything. Lets get specific if you want to.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Boy, you're an expert at misconstrual. For the second time, you haven't been invited to leave the forum, and I'm not participating here in this thread in Admin mode and so could not do that anyway.I'm suggesting that you take a break so that you can refresh your creative muse and regain perspective, because your replies lack content. There's no administrative force behind this suggestion whatsoever. People are giving you science and history and definitions and argument and discussion, and what's coming back from you is very little, mostly just stuff along the lines of "Get a grip," and "I'm resisting the urge to just bust out laughing," and "Oh, that's too funny," and ignorant statements about evolution and even Newton, and so forth and so on.What you should bring to the party is a willingness to understand and assess what people say to you, and in return offer your well-considered judgements as well as the evidence and rationale for your own point of view. Just saying, in effect, "No, you're wrong," in post after post interspersed with erroneous statements isn't really holding up your side of the discussion.--Percy

No one's trying to convert you, just educate you. Your attitude is killing you.You're confusing Neil Tyson with Sam Harris, and I offered no quote from Tyson anyway. I referenced Harris concerning tolerance of loony ideas under a religious umbrella. I referenced Tyson concerning the threat of anti-science ideas to modern civilization.I listen to Hovind and Gish, I don't see why you shouldn't listen to genuine scientists. Neil deGrasse Tyson has written a number of popular books and magazine columns and articles on astronomy, he's currently the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, and he's also a Bush appointee on the committee studying future directions for NASA. Give it a listen: --Percy

Well, maybe, but as someone who believes in creation I am a member of a group that's going to destroy western civilization. You'll probably come back and say, no, that's not what I meant, but if you go back and put together various things you've said, that's pretty much it.So it's a little hard to maintain whatever solemn equilibrium you want me to have. I'll just make one last protest that aside from evolution I'd be a scientist. I got a degree from a technical institute; I learned physics, math, chemistry, thermodynamics, materials, etc. etc. and had no conflicts whatever that I can think of with anything I was taught. I'll probably listen to Tyson when I get a chance. So, from my perspective evolution is destroying science, and I'll probably just have to leave it at that.

what about Message 146 ?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)