That reminds me of another big point to keep in mind when talking about it to Christiains: that you could dispute their theology rather than their science, and might make more progress by doing so; someone who won't let go of a religious idea over a conflict with science might still let go of that same religious idea if convinced that it was a religious mistake and a different religious belief was more pure and God-intended. But that requires a lot of familiarity with theological debates & disputes.

Careful!

These are still theories and subject to nullification. It is dogmatic to state otherwise; and that is the defining difference between a scientific theory and a religious platitude: A theory is subject to scrutiny and will be changed if and when carefully developed evidence demonstrates that the reasoning behind the theory is wrong.

Always challenge.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Uhm... you can't nullify Hiroshima....though we almost did using a "theory".

Yes, that is a good point to keep in mind before entering any debate. Once a person feels that their values are under attack, it becomes too personal for most and conversations degenerate away from constructive discourse. Veteran debaters, however, are cognitive of this and have learned to avoid taking things too personal if it causes them to stumble.

Yes, but only in part, I think. There are many other sources of good moral values that are not considered by them, so the Bible is much more. The Bible presents the God<->human experience and is creationist’s textbook to understanding that general and personal relationship. Just how the Bible is valued by them is the key to understanding their behavior.

Good point because if the Bible is regarded as foundational, holy and, by a few, inerrant, then flaws are not acceptable, else their faith is founded on shifting sand, not rock. For them, this inerrancy is a tenet of their faith. Enough cracks in their foundation and their house may fall. This is why foundational repair crews, like AIG, have been successful. But, this effort is, IMO, counter productive as the foundation design is at fault, so patch efforts are only temporary. Eventually, the fog will lift and the “Made in Sillyville” stamp will be discovered. Then they will move out and be welcomed in Christian communities outside of that land.

Indeed, most Christianity is already outside of Sillyville. They see within the Bible the great amount of allegories, parables, metaphors, hyperboles and other poetic devices helpful in communication to cause a much more open view as to the interpretation of certain scripture that would prevent the unraveling when science pulls on a given thread. Further, the large number of denominations that have arisen is due to the many tapestries – I like your metaphor -- that have evolved. Some unraveling has simply produced a larger number of tapestries. Yet, the fabric has not torn where the tenets to Christianity remain.

That may be a bit too myopic, though I might imagine any fundamentalists down the street from Dawkins neighborhood might be inclined to feel that way. Even when science is seen as irreverent, the value of science is too prevalent to be truly irrelevant. They do drive cars and use electricity and computers, afterall. Yet, that requires deeper knowledge of science.

Because most believers are comfortable with superficial views of science, they are more vulnerable to false ideas that science is still doubtful in areas that are amazingly supported with solid evidence. They really don’t look at nucleosynthesis, redshift data, galaxy morphologies, entropy, CMBR, etc. and realize just how these separate scientific lines of evidence converge into the beautiful confluence known as the “theory” of Big Bang/Inflation. Given arguments from both sides, it is hard for them to weigh the truth on a plastic scale from the dollar store.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

That's what I try to do - show that there is no basis for shunning evolution in the religion in question apart from what the loudest sect is yelling at them. As long as you're respectful and don't rubbish the notion of God altogether (which of course leads to another, longer argument!) I find people tend to listen.
A Jewish friend of mine told me that God made the world 6 times before getting it right, and each time simply built the new world over the old one and this is why we find fossils. I pointed out that such a theory conflicted with the notion of omnipotence, hit him over the head with a rolled up newspaper, and showed him the middle quote of my signature. Fight bad theology with good theology/philosophy and let their own reason lead them to better conclusions.

__________________
"Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate?" ~ Lieutenant Commander Data

"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." ~ Galileo Galilei

I'm afraid of losing my obscurity. Genuineness only thrives in the dark. Like celery. ~ Huxley

We hammered a bunch of U235 together. That will cause an explosion whether you have a theory to explain why or not. We knew the sun produced more energy than any known source; so a search as to how to duplicate the sun would have likely proceeded with or without an underlying theory. It was the discovery that neutrons can be slowed down, and in doing so cause catastrophic chain reactions, that lead most directly to bomb development.

The theory behind the engineering doesn't have to be right. A case in point is the total destruction of the Bikini atoll; because the phycists did not know lithium 6 would join in on the fun.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

edit title should read "WWJD"

I am wondering why on earth would you or anyone for that matter even want to do that?
I think RalofTyr has given you your start point.

You would most likely need to walk in hand in hand with God and get Him to tell them He did it differently. First they would not believe you walked in with God and then your troubles really start.

For the most part they are really nice people who just don't want to change their ideas, much like scientists are really nice people who just don't want to change their ideas.

It is not like you can't be friends, it is just that you shouldn't be allowed to play together unsupervised ...

I want to amplify the point made above that YEC is social and political. The argument is not about what it seems on its face. If you look at the history, you'll see YEC is, well, "young" itself, fairly recent. It is a reaction against what is seen as the breakdown of morality, etc, etc.

Darwin is the primary enemy there, followed by cosmology, but any "fellow travelers" will be attacked as well. For example, they wouldn't have any beef against say applied EM theory, unless some link between that and Darwin and cosmology comes up. Their belief is that Darwin lead to a rejection of God, which is leading society down the toilet morally.

And that's why you can't argue with them. It's not about how old the earth or the universe really is. They don't really care. It's just a proxy for what is the real bone of contention.

-Richard

A well reasoned argument is a good thing. It tests what we hold dear as true and challenges our complacency. I do have a contribution however trivial it might seem.
It does not mater that some choose not to except the science as I do. I would point out that most will simply wallow in their own ignorance while some will search for their own truths and, find them.
I have chosen to make the science of astronomy a interest and it has become a hobby of some passion to me. I am involved with the public viewing sessions at the local astronomical societies observatory. There is a moment I cherish dearly. When a young first time observer sees Jupiter's moons or Saturn's rings... that gasp of delight is priceless. If by chance we have implanted the seed of inquire, or the interest in science then we are done...Yes. In the minds of the young lives the want to know. In that I have faith.

See, that's where I would argue with a creationist. Just saying "god created the sun" is fine if that's what somebody wants to believe, but presumably we are interested in how it works, whether it can be replicated, etc., so it's important to understand the mechanisms. That's why I think there are many scientists who are religious but still practice science the "normal" way. They realize that the ultimate purpose is different.

__________________
As above, so below

Jerry said: "That will cause an explosion whether you have a theory to explain why or not."

Yes, but when the U235 is slammed together and an explosion took place this event told us something factual about the behavior of matter and the basic structure of the Universe. When the lithium 6 "joined in the fun" this event told us something factual about the behavior of matter and the basic structure of the Universe. Theory or no theory, discoveries such as these are important in terms of furthering our understanding of the cosmos. Speaking of energy releasing devices, why is it Jerry, in your opinion, that it has not been possible to bridge the gap in energy release between TNT and nuclear weapons despite numerous efforts to do so? If your anything goes humanity does not really understand much about the Universe view is correct, then why have so many efforts in this direction failed? Could it be that previous discoveries coupled with theory are, again, telling us that "anything goes" doesn't work.

As for creationism, my view is that cosmic evolution and biochemical evolution are all that is needed to explain how things got to be the way they are right now; even if these ideas have to be modified that does not mean that creationist is correct or required. Having said that, these scientific ideas, and probably no science, can tell us why there is something rather than nothing. I find it troubling when cosmologists say the Universe went from nothing to Big Bang. The Universe and nothing in the previous sentence are key to seeing why this popular notion is circular and thus logically flawed. Whatever happened to the idea that the Universe is infinite in space and time even though its recent appearance and characteristics may trick us into thinking its not.

Actually, understanding and being able to replicate things isn't a very solid argument against creationism.

I'm reminded of a short story illustrating this point.

There was a man who believed he could do anything God could do, so God challenged him. "Can you make man from dust?"
The man picked up the dust and blew life into it, and there it was.
Then God said, "Very well done, except now, try to do it without using My dust."

At some point in the past a Homo Sapien, possibly a savant, looked up from the business of survival and cast their eyes across a glacial lake to see the sun rising beyond a mountain of white ice and wondered, without language, who am I.

We are still seeking that answer. Some think they know.

__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily available to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

"Quaerendo inventis"

I don't find where you have defined "Creationist" here. In my mind, evolution is about how we got from point A to point B. Creation is about where A came from. You might add, Catastrophism is about how some of the steps from A to B happen suddenly, like mutations.
So isn't creation beyond the realm of science, and science can deal with things after A. I think this is roughly Stephen Hawkings point of view, and it makes sense to me. Regarding creation, it seems logical to believe that there was never nothing. So you are left with (1) The universe just always existed, or (2) a higher being always exsisted and created the universe at some point. Your faith is what you choose, 1 or 2.

I can deal with that definition. The problem is when the creationist shows up in the classroom; attaching IV's to evolution and/or other aspects of the scientific inquiry, screaming that there are fundamental flaws they can fix.

But they can't. Most of the 16th through the mid 19th centuries were spent weaving together theories of the natural and supernatural; and what we have arrived at today is our best effort at unraveling the basic fabric of nature from a very large batch of glorified superstitions. This weeding process is not complete; and it is not helped-along when we are not carefully checking our hideside for layered flaws.

This coment leaves me scratching my head. Our experimental observations have taught us subatomic bond energy yields are many times greater than molecular bond energy yields. We understand a lot about these processes, and we have theories. We also find a lot of mysteries that we are at a loss to explain with our current theories. There is much to learn.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I went through a similar transition from religious to rationalism (though not quite rationality! ), and it's a difficult struggle. The problem as I see it is that not everyone is seeking the factual truth, but rather a comforting Truthiness - "God made Man (me), so we're (I'm) special". And far too many adults lack the education and/or mindset to view science and reason as more valid than faith, and indeed feel threatened by them because it upsets their comforting specialness.

I'd say then, that it wasn't so much an irrational belief, as just a belief based on the information you had at the time-- I may be misreading. Just shows how vital a solid education in scientific thinking really is.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Could you explain what exactly creationsim is, because I am a little confused at your hostility towards it? What do you believe created the universe?

I can answer for myself, though I imagine others on this board will beg to differ.

Whether some deity or deities created the universe according to some ineffable divine plan is simply beyond the scope of science. Science can deduce how the universe was created, but not why. Because science has allowed an interpretation of creation that does not require a deity, some have concluded that no such deity exists. That is their perogative, but it is neither supported nor refuted by scientific evidence, nor can it be.

Most of the people who accept that the universe was constructed according to some form of divine plan or law still accept the evidence presented by the world as valid. These people I do not consider creationists. Nor, I imagine, would they call themselves that.

Among those who believe in a divine plan however, there exists a substantial minority who will accept no authority whatsoever, even that of their own eyes, over that of their holy texts. Among Christians this takes the form of Biblical literalists who, against all the physical evidence of astronomy, geology, cosmology, biology and even chemistry and physics, adhere to a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis as the first and final word on the universe's origins. These people would probably call themselves creationists, though personally I would not. For me, creationism is a political as well as a religious ideology. In order to be a creationist, one must not only insist that a literal reading of a religious text is the only valid method for discerning reality, but also must insist that to allow any other interpretation to circulate in public is against one's deity's law, and thus to do everything in one's power to undermine and discredit alternate modes of thought, and science in particular. That, to me, is a creationist.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

I was taught in Highschool...way back... that there is only ONE infallible answer to the question "Why?".

"Why not?"

Because nothing is easier to create than something?

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

I like to think of it as installing special circuit breakers in my mind. Carl Sagan said that science was not a body of facts to be memorized but a way of thinking. Unfortunately for me, my way of thinking was tinkered with to catch certain phrases. "Evolve" was an obvious one, unless you are talking about a man-made object. You can discuss the evolution of an automobile, but not the evolution of a dung beetle. "Million years ago" was another one. As a result of my creationist training, as soon as I heard or read these key phrases, the circuit breaker in my mind threw and I ignored whatever discussion followed. It didn't matter what followed, no matter how well-documented or supported by evidence, it was wrong. And I knew it was wrong because God said so.

It really put me behind my peers in terms of knowledge and thinking skills. Not my peers in my science class, of course. I was quite the science geek in high school and made top marks. But for my peers in general, it was like learning world history by reading nothing but The Lord of the Rings. I'm saddened by the fact that I would have probably enjoyed a career in science, but I would have to go back to the equivalent of high school and begin my science education all over again because of what I failed to receive the first time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by parallaxicality Most of the people who accept that the universe was constructed according to some form of divine plan or law still accept the evidence presented by the world as valid. These people I do not consider creationists. Nor, I imagine, would they call themselves that.

Yes, many, if not most, do take that amorphous creationists term that way, but don't bother to qualify this view.

There are many interesting aspects of how the "creationist" term affects people.

Do Creationists, as per your definition, enjoy the use of a term that is attractive to all those who believe in a Creator? I would think so. Suppose the term astronomist existed. Would it not seem synonymous with astronomer, as in comparision of the term "creationer" to "creationist", though "creationer" is too akward sounding, obviously? Can those engaged in astronomy not be astronomists, and would those who engage in a belief in a Creator not be creationists (or creationers)? Perhaps, but if that were true, astronomists would likely have a clear definition to prevent the confusion. [Indeed, many separate terms exist, though I won't mention heliochromologists, of course. ]

Nevertheless, a simple view of the term creationist suggests one who holds to the belief of a Creator. Thus, YEC Creationists (Yecists?), likely enjoy this attractive benefit when they call themselves, or are called by others, Creationists. [IIRC, the term creationism was coined by someone at ICR.]

Those who oppose believe in a Creator, also enjoy the collateral damage they do to all believers when they attack Yecists by using the broad term of "creationists", unless, of course, they qualify their target. Since no specific term, like Yecists, exists, it is hard to be critical of their use of that term.

The two groups that are the most vocal publicly are the two above, which perpetuates the problem. The vast majority of believers are not creationists (Yecists), yet suffer from both sides.

Obviously, I would suggest improved terminology to "eschew obfuscation".

Quote:

Among those who believe in a divine plan however, there exists a substantial minority who will accept no authority whatsoever, even that of their own eyes, over that of their holy texts. Among Christians this takes the form of Biblical literalists who, against all the physical evidence of astronomy, geology, cosmology, biology and even chemistry and physics, adhere to a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis as the first and final word on the universe's origins. These people would probably call themselves creationists, though personally I would not. For me, creationism is a political as well as a religious ideology. In order to be a creationist, one must not only insist that a literal reading of a religious text is the only valid method for discerning reality, but also must insist that to allow any other interpretation to circulate in public is against one's deity's law, and thus to do everything in one's power to undermine and discredit alternate modes of thought, and science in particular. That, to me, is a creationist.

I would consider them active creationists, instead. To obstinately deny the results from a beautiful confluence of scientific knowledge in favor of a particular literal interpretation is no different in ideology than someone who becomes more active with it politically. Those creationists (Yecists) who are not active, perhaps, are "closet Creationists", but they would still be creationists and will likely support those creationists in political endeavors.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Admittedly, this distinction amounts to samantic hair-splitting, but it really is no different from the difference between a "Muslim" and an "Islamist". Muslims hold a particular ideology, Islamists attempt to force that ideology on others. Similarly, simply believing in creation does not necessarily make one a creationist. The desire to transform that belief into a political ideology does.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

That is intersting, and it makes sense. Yet, the problem may indeed be similar. Wouldn't many, or most, people who are extremely faithful to Islam allow the term Islamist to apply to them? Do Muslims often inform others that they are not Islamists? I don't really know the answer, but I would guess the general public would be confused on the use of these terms, as well as, the creationist term.

That is not an unreasonable definition, but I still say a better term is needed since "creation" believer and "creationist" are so similar in appearance. Wouldn't YEC advocates not acitively engaged in politics be considered creationists? How would you compare your definition with the BA's use of the term?

[I hope I don't sound contentious in any way because I am appreciative of this interesting discussion, which is a difficult topic.]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

We do not know.
Would you except that it just happened?
Your use of the term created suggests you think it was.
That is the point of difference.

I suppose, at the risk of tipping too far into banned topics, you could argue (as I do) that special creation and, even more, young Earth creation suggests a creator with less artistic economy than one using the elegance of evolution to achieve a biosphere.

Yes very well said. It is a political reactionary movement linked to the progress of capitalism dissolving traditional values and communities in its stride.

It is exactly the same thing as Islamism. A reaction against modernity.

And maybe they have some good reasons to dislike modernity.Anyway their solution is a return to a traditional rigid society. And strict obedience to the scriptures is an evident way to get it.
There come the ideological fight to justify it. So the evolution theory is their natural enemy.

The "hostility" or argument I have is with those who attempt to insert personal religious beliefs into the science class. As for your question about the origin of the universe, I would say that we don't yet even know if it makes sense to say the universe was "created." Philosophically speaking, a creator doesn't resolve anything, it just adds another step: If the argument is that the universe must have been created, then logically, so would the creator. If it is argued that we can't assume the creator must have been created, then logically we can't assume that the universe must have been created. You can believe whatever you want on this issue, but it isn't within the purview of science.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Because!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

A dictionary seems to indicate that "Islamist" is a Western word for "Muslim", and not a new one. Not a nice one, either. It also means "A Muslim that we don't like." As well as the aggressive militant sort, of course.

It's my opinion that there are people who behave well or behave badly and this is less often governed by their religion than you'd expect.