God or Not?

Why Creationists are doomed to fail.

Posted on August 6th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.

On Aug 6, 10:24 pm, gadfly1974
wrote:
> “There is still no need to make metaphysical claims.”
>
> Why not? How does science explain an apparent age of the universe
> less than infinity?

I’m assuming you are talking about how everything got started. Science
currently does not have an explanation for that.

That is a long way from saying that science cannot nor will never find
an explanation. Nor does it mean that the answer MUST be a
metaphysical answer, let alone a specific metaphysical answer.

In short, the answer, as of now, is “I don’t know” and that is NOT
code for “[Insert fictional story here]”.

>
> On Aug 6, 8:14 am, Drafterman wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 11:01 pm, gadfly1974
> > wrote:
>
> > > When science proved that there was a moment of creation (big bang),
> > > this was great news for theists.
>
> > Science has not proved there was a moment of creation. Current
> > theories have explanatory power only up to a certain time period,
> > before which they break down. This gets us very early to the
> > hypothetical Time 0, but not exactly there.
>
> > In fact there are some hypothesis being bandied around which
> > explicitly deny any sort of single creation moment.
>
> > > Before this, the universe could be imagined to be infinite in age, and
> > > there was no need to make metaphysical claims.
>
> > There is still no need to make metaphysical claims.
>
> > > Now we know that nothing became something. That’s consistent with the
> > > Biblical account of creation.
>
> > But not consistent with any scientific theory. And even if it was, the
> > details of the Biblical account are wrong at almost every level.
>
> > > All this arguing about creationism is foolish and based upon the
> > > unsubstantiated premise that Genesis 1 requires the earth to be
> > > created in 7 literal days just a few thousand years ago.
>
> > This would not be an issue unless there were singificant groups of
> > people that believed just that. If you disagree with that, then go
> > argue with them, not us. In any event there is more in error than
> > simply the timeframes involved.
>
> > > Once Christians give up this particular interpretation of the Hebrew
> > > scriptures, we can participate without shame in exciting scientific
> > > discoveries.
>
> > > On Aug 5, 3:37 pm, Drafterman wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 5, 2:33 pm, Psycho Dave wrote:
>
> > > > > After looking at the history of Creationism, and the organizations and
> > > > > people behind it, the following observations are apparent:
>
> > > > > (1) Creationists have been saying that there is still no consensus on
> > > > > Evolution, and that “a growing number of scientists are now
> > > > > questioning the Theory of Evolution.” Unfortunately, for Creationists,
> > > > > This statement of theirs has never been true. The Discovery Institute
> > > > > once released a letter signed by 100 scientists, stating that the
> > > > > people who signed have questioned Evolution as a valid scientific
> > > > > theory. Unfortunately, for Creationists, half of the people on that
> > > > > list demanded to be removed from it, and claimed that the Discovery
> > > > > Institute used their names without permission, and that they do not
> > > > > question Evolution.
>
> > > > > The Sad truth is that a simple study of the people whose names appear
> > > > > on that letter reveals that only half-a-dozen of them are actually
> > > > > scientists who work in the relevent fields. Even worse, the National
> > > > > Center for Science Education released a letter in reply to the
> > > > > Discovery Institite’s letter, with 250,000 names of scientists whose
> > > > > credentials have not been challenged by anyone. The NCSE’s list
> > > > > represents most of the working scientists and science professors in
> > > > > America. The world’s scientists have a consensus on Evolution. They
> > > > > support it. The Creationists could not even come up with a legitimate
> > > > > list of 100 scientists who doubted Evolution, and as a result, we can
> > > > > only conclude that about 0.004% of the world’s scientists challenge
> > > > > evolution. That’s less than 1% of all scientists, even if you allow
> > > > > that all 100 names were legitimate.
>
> > > > > (2) Creationists claim that there is a vast conspiracy in the academic
> > > > > world which prevents them from being heard, and which actively singles
> > > > > out and ruins the career of anyone who challenges Evolution. Even if
> > > > > this were true, it would be a pretty big conspiracy theory, because it
> > > > > would mean that all of the world’s scientists, many of whom are
> > > > > Christians, who regularly work according to the principles of the
> > > > > scientific method, have decided to willingly forget all about their
> > > > > principles with reguard to the theory of Evolution. It would require
> > > > > that all scientists who are not questioning evolution are
> > > > > participating in a cover-up of mammoth proportions, which would make
> > > > > the X-files seem like a documentary.
>
> > > > Not to mention a conspiracy of this type and magnitude would have to
> > > > exist across geographic and political boundaries. The scientific
> > > > community is one of struggle to produce new theories and is not
> > > > conducive to the formation and maintenance of such conspiracies.
> > > > Combine that with the natural competitiveness between nations and any
> > > > sort of covert cooperation to inhibit scientific advancement would
> > > > fail.
>
> > > > > (3) To this day, Creationists have not actually participated in the
> > > > > scientific peer-review process, and have not done any scientific work
> > > > > to forward their cause. The vast majority of what creationists do
> > > > > consists of lecturing church groups, conducting debates with
> > > > > scientists in front of church groups, writing books that get sold by
> > > > > churches and religious ministries, and lobbying the government. The
> > > > > one obstacle to creationists getting heard and being taken seriously
> > > > > (participation in the scientific process) is the one thing that they
> > > > > don’t seem to have any interest in doing. The Discovery Institute has
> > > > > recently opened up a peer-review journal, but nothing notable has come
> > > > > out of it yet.
>
> > > > > (4) Creationists also don’t seem to make any appeals to the one place
> > > > > where it matters — to science. All of their energy goes into
> > > > > appealing to non-scientists. The only way a scientific theory gains
> > > > > any acceptence at all, is if enough scientists hear about it,
> > > > > experiment on it, test it, and find it valid. If Creationists wanted
> > > > > their theory to be accepted in the world of science, they should work
> > > > > within the field (see #3 above). The public never votes on what
> > > > > science facts are true, and what science facts are not.
>
> > > > Their goal is to circumvent the natural process. The way things do and
> > > > should work is in a trickle-down manner. Scientists discover/invent
> > > > some new model or theory. It gets tested and accepted and eventually
> > > > works its way into the curriculum of higher education facilities,
> > > > through colleges and down to lower level schools (depending on the
> > > > complexity of the subject, but there is a definite and gradual trend
> > > > to have previously higher-level subjects taught sooner and sooner).
>
> > > > Creationists simply want to bypass all that hocum and have it taught
> > > > at the lowest levels of schools. A poison seed if you will, to
> > > > “protect” them against contrary information. In this manner they can
> > > > attempt to starve out the offending scientific field. If they prime
> > > > enough youngesters with anti-evolutionary dogma, then they will not
> > > > choose a field of study or career involving evolution. Successfully
> > > > continued on a long-enough time line, you will have no scientists
> > > > working on evolutionary studies. It will be dead.
>
> > > > > (5) Creationism is tainted with dishonesty. A cursory examination of
> > > > > their literature reveals that they frequently resort to deceptive
> > > > > editing of quotes from scientists, and deliberately distort what other
> > > > > scientists have written, in order to make it seem as though they
> > > > > support creationist claims. The Wedge document, an official document
> > > > > from the Discovery Institute which outlined their strategy, revealed
> > > > > that the principle strategy was based on decieving the public and
> > > > > producing propaganda. William Dembski, one of the chief figures behind
> > > > > the Discovery Institute, referred to his failed attempt to start a
> > > > > creationist think tank using Baylor University’s funds, without
> > > > > actually going through the proper channels, as a great success, even
> > > > > though the “success” consisted of him violating University rules,
> > > > > getting caught, then losing his job as a director, and not being asked
> > > > > to teach any more classes. He also wrote a letter claiming that
> > > > > Baylor’s staff fully endorsed him, which was criticized as an outright
> > > > > lie by the Baylor staff. That’s not all, either.
>
> > > > > The recent film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, showcased several
> > > > > creationists who claim to have lost their jobs just because they
> > > > > questioned evolution. Plenty has been written about these people, and
> > > > > essentially, none of them lost their jobs at all, much less were
> > > > > prevented from working because of anything related to Evolution.
>
> > > > > The Dover case proved, after contradictory testimony from Discovery
> > > > > Institute personnel who were called as witnesses, that the people
> > > > > responsible for putting “Of Pandas and People” together, were lying
> > > > > about it. The book was originally a creationist publication, and after
> > > > > the Discovery Institute decided to distance itself from Creationism,
> > > > > and come up with a secular-sounding version of creationism, the book
> > > > > was simply edited, and had the words “creation” replaced with
> > > > > “design”, and “creationist” replaced with “Design Proponent”. Under
> > > > > testimony, the book’s promoters claimed that the book was not
> > > > > religious at all, but in the evidence was the previous copy of the
>
> …
>
> read more »

0 comments.