Well may be my choice of word was not good. Dont know.In fact I used a French word "Islamisme" meaning Muslim fundamentalism or extremism.

Nice post, Robert. But creationists do value truth. However, truth can only adjudged from within a particular linguistic framework system (cf. Carnap). They take a literally interpreted Bible as absolutely true based on a mystical expericence of God. Therefore, they are faced with reinterpreting scientific findings "come what may" (cf. Quine) in order to make them logically consistent with their interpretation of the Bible. Theirs may not be a very parsimonious system, but it works for them within that system, and everything is logically consistent and true.

Well, at least their not trying to reinvent their ethics from scratch. That's the problem with secular humanism--the morality is too easy, too selfish, too anthropocentric.

That's a bit unfair. Sophisticated theists (including IDists--and why are we talking about young earth creationism? it's pretty much a straw man these days) are very good critical thinkers. Hang out with some ultraorthodox Jewish guys sometime.

You're selling them short here and you'll get squeezed. Creationist ideas merely interpret the empirical observations of science in a way consistent with the Bible. And since scientific theory is underdetermined by the evidence, mainstream scientific theory is not logically entailed by the empirical, observational evidence.


Huh? I thought Saint Paul didn't come around until long after the time of Genesis.

And some are also good doctors, engineers, physicists, and biochemists and sundry other scientists. They don't make good evolutioanry biologists, however.

That's pretty much it. I would add that maybe secular humanists might benefit from a self-examination of where their moral agenda comes from. Because it's certainly not science, and it's certainly not God, and so that leaves either Satan or themselves.

Nice post, Robert.

So, according to you, Warren, anyone who disagrees with Creationism or the bible is a "Secular Humanist" with the same "moral agenda?" How about just someone who disagrees with you, and has different morals?

ADDED: As for my morality being form "Satan", I couldn't say, I've never met him.

__________________
"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

We've had a number of YEC proponents on BAUT, along with Geocentrists and others. I won't debate "critical thinking" skills, but will only point out that Creationism isn't science.

In science, you go where the evidence leads. You don't start with a book, interpret it in various ways (often contradictory interpretations between groups), then attempt to fit evidence to your interpretation. A world flood, for example, doesn't fit the evidence.

I think all people would benefit from examining the cultural roots of their moral systems. Simplistic references to supposed beings, whether Zeus, Odin, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Satan , aren't helpful. However. this too is not a discussion about 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

Not where I live, not by a longshot. There are a huge number of bible literalists who make sure our local public schools toe the line.

__________________
"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

. . . which is why it is a subject here. Belief is one thing, attempting to force religion into the science classroom is another.

__________________
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

To some... religion is science. While I don't subscribe to it, you cannot argue with what someone has personally experienced.

Logic and faith are inevitably intertwined. Without it, we would have no philosophers asking "why".

Faith is fine for those who like it. *

But don't teach it in a science class. That's for science.




*(This is, of course, not mentioning all the hundreds of other religions and faiths with their own Creation stories. If you teach one, you should teach 'em all. Just not in a science classroom.)

__________________
"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

I can ask someone for their objective evidence. If they can't provide it, it isn't science.

Why what? No, wait, don't answer that - that's for the philosophy class discussion, not the science discussion.

__________________
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

You completely missed my gentle sarcasm.

A simple example of trying to use logic or scientific proof with some people, is that they have experienced something that science has no answer for in a book, and therefore to them, it is real.

There are Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and other South Americans that will look you right in the face as serious as the day is bright, and tell you that the Chupacabra (Goat Sucker) is a real thing. Whether or not there is any scientific evidence is useless to them. Their evidence is the cow drained of blood with no evidence of a fight. Lack of evidence to the faithful is proof of evidence to the contrary.

I 100% agree with YOU. But our arguments do not hold true with someone who doesn't think that way.

Well, that's the problem. Not many people ever learn real analytical thinking, and that's why the world is such a mess.
People jump to conclusions and then carve them in stone, accept the word of strangers and celebrities, and believe all sorts of superstitions unquestioningly and at times fanatically. And smart people mostly just rationalize their nonsense better than dumb people.

__________________
"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

And this is precisely why "reasoning" with other world leaders does not always work.

I'm not a world leader, nor have I tried to reason with any. But I'm flattered by the comparison.

__________________
"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

There actually IS a science to understanding to how people think and why.

Frustrating as it can be, it is there.

Faithful ask why. Science asks How.

Many combine the two whether it makes sense or not to others.

No, science asks why as well as how. Faith says "Just because!"

__________________
"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

Taking Rudolf Carnap from the lofty heights of logical positivism into the bruisy political brawl of creationism is really misleading, and makes him look like a relativist, which he was not. Carnap also said there is no knowledge outside science, a claim which sets the tone for his views on truth. Non-scientific ‘linguistic framework systems’ tend to be internally inconsistent, indicating their weak grasp of truth. This use of Carnap illustrates that scientists need to be more street-wise in rebutting creationism, and not take statements from the likes of Popper or Hume or Quine outside their epistemological context. However, the real job is in comparing ways of thought - commensurating. There is a lot of work needed to recognise the legitimate arguments of the religious in order to rebut their false ones. This is best done from outside their “system”, not within it, as their ‘system’ contains untestable and false assumptions.
Sorry Warren, but with due respect, this statement is rubbish. Parsimony has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism, and their ‘system’ is not ‘logically consistent and true’. For a start there are two creation accounts in Genesis, and the Bible itself is rife with inconsistency - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna..._and_the_Bible (Internal_consistency_and_the_Bible)
You are conflating ‘theism’ with ‘creationism’. This is not legitimate. Creationism is a specific form of theism, going beyond the claims of the existence of a Creator God to argue that God intervenes in the world in ways contrary to those observed by evolutionary biology, and indeed, in ways that science considers impossible and farcical (eg stopping the sun so Joshua could slaughter the Amorites ch10:v12). A sophisticated theism should recognise the operation of scientific law as the method of God, not continue to clutch at an obsolete magical view. You cannot be a ‘good critical thinker’ and a creationist. The two are incompatible.
Please, again this is false. Creationists do deny scientific evidence, notably the geological record. Theists who “interpret the empirical observations of science in a way consistent with the Bible”are not creationists. As well, your statement is not possible as there are claims in the Bible that are inconsistent with empirical observation.
This is a confusing aside which deserves comment nonetheless. Your word “underdetermined” may apply to some beliefs of scientists, but it is precisely the beauty and power of science that its theories are supported by evidence. Claims like string theory that do not have evidentiary backing do not have the status of scientific theory, but are merely hypotheses. “Underdetermined” theories can also be about things beyond the scope of empirical observation, such as theology. But this creationism thread should not be the place for an argument about whether scientific theory is entailed by evidence – something generally accepted as intrinsic to science.
My point (not made clearly enough) was that creationists use the cosmology they derive from Genesis to underpin their belief in New Testament ideas such as those of Saint Paul on the ransom theory of the cross (1 Tim 2:5). Creationists take cosmic Pauline hymns such as Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 as central to a magical concept of heaven and salvation which in its crude literal form is obsolete. They want to protect their flawed theory of salvation by an equally flawed and obsolete theory of creation. But please don’t get me wrong on this, I am a fan of Saint Paul. He had great ideas about salvation, its just that creationists can’t see them because they insist on clinging to the residues of a medieval concept of faith.

Indeed not, sir. I myself am no creationist, yet I am proud to call myself a scientific materialist, which is also different from secular humanism.
Well, I guess I could have been a bit more clear. Since, secular humanism is a species of naturalism and since naturalism excludes supernatural entities like Satan, then if secular humanist morality originated either from Satan or from themselves, then it logically must be the case that the morality of secular humanists originates from themselves.

But does teaching, say ID theory, in the science classroom of a Kansas school because that's what the local school board voted to do really on the level of Selma, where we must impose the federal will on local folks by sending in the Nationa Guard if necessary? When is reconstruction ever going to end?

If somebody wants to teach religion in a private Kansas school, then they are free to do so. If, however, they try to teach religion in a government school, then there is the Constitutional issue.

__________________
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

Then what is your definition of "secular humanist"? How do you determing if someone meets your definition? What "moral agenda" do you feel these individuals are trying to promote?

__________________
"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

Exactly, and the Constitution devolves the responsibility of education to the states.

But how about this for a compromise: let's abolish the public schools and give each child a $6,000 voucher to spend at the private school of their choice.

Not when "education" (and here I use the term "education" loosely, considering the subject) involves promoting a religion in government institutions.

__________________
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

Or is from a more progressive denomination. Greek Orthodox. Logic in my genes.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

Whoops, sorry, didn't mean to lump your "logical genes" with the local yahoos I have to deal with daily. I know --abstractly-- that most members of most religions are not anti-science, it's just that the ones who are make an awful lot of noise. And around here, they also make policy.

__________________
"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

But scientific systems and even mathematics itself contain internal inconsistancies. The point is to try to reduce the inconsistancies by varying truth-values across the web of implications. So one can cling to the truth of a sentence "come what may", as Quine would say, as long as one is willing to alter enough truth-values elsewhere.
You can't do this from a God's eye perspective. If you judge "their" system from outside their system, then you are judging their system from within your system. And frankly, I have a hard time figuring out where you're coming from. You're apparently some kind of Christian, or at least a friend of Christians, but apparently only certain kinds. It would be helpful if you laid your cards on the table, as I have; we would be less likely to talk past each other. (I am hard-core scientific materialist--that's why I try hard to understand religious systems on their own terms).

That's the whole idea of having a god, right? I mean what good is a god that can't violate the laws of physics whenever it wants?

They don't deny that there are fossils--they just disagree on how to interpret those fossils (as well as the lack of fossil missing links).

I agree.

Then why is it that string theory is researched in physics departments, published in science journals, and the researchers think of themselves and scientists, and not mathematicians or theologians or philosophers?

See, this is what I mean: I can't tell where you're coming from. The way you write out "Saint Paul" makes me think your probably Catholic, and that's cool. But any statement you make will be from within a Catholic system, and not a scientific materialist system, nor an evangelical system.

We can afford to be sectarian about empirical experience. It's either raining or it's not. But it would be better for all of us if we were more pluralistic with respect to our metaphysical systems. We all would get along better.

Answering creationists with a 'But what about...' just entrenches them to show you as wrong. The best tool in the box is the knowledge. By presenting our young with all the information. Even the unsavory bits. With all the information presented in a unbiased balanced maner... to good to be true. We just have to try harder. I am at times ashamed of some of our forefathers as some of there actions were appallingly violent and racist. We have educated ourselves to a point today where we recognize the rights of every person equally. The right to carry a religious belief and to empower our offspring with it is at times improper to me. Balance is achieved by complete and reasoned education. In some small way, This column is part of that.

Obviously, words like this have different definitions depending on the speaker, but I've edited academic articles on the Middle East and scholars, at least, usually use the term Islamism to mean Islamic groups that support the idea of Islam being not only a religion but a political system (system for organizing society) as well. it's not necessarily aggressive, though it often is, and can be considered more radical.

__________________
As above, so below

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

T. Anderson

I can't help wondering why everyone is so bothered about all this. Let Creationists believe what they like, what difference does that make to anyone else? So they have a poor grasp of science - I would argue that a large percentage of people who accept evolution have an equally poor grasp of science, they're only evolutionists because the telly says it's true and they don't like the idea of a god watching them over their shoulder, not because they've read their Darwin and Gould etc and come to a reasoned decision.

I'm all for increasing scientific understanding in general, but I can never see why the likes of Richard Dawkins get so hot under the collar just knowing that the world is full of people who believe in god. I read his last book and I thought it was appallingly badly written, with poor arguments and so incredibly patronising I can't imagine anyone changing their beliefs having read it. In fact, he came over as a bigger frothing fundamentalist than the people he was trying to "convert".

Trying to convince people who believe in god that there isn't one has about much chance of success as you being convinced that evolution is a load of cobblers.

__________________
Red

"Go to Blue Alert!"
"Is that really necessary Sir? It will mean changing the bulb..."

Couldn't have said it better myself. My hat is off to you Code Red.