´óÏó´«Ã½

William- You're in trouble with PB and Billy now, for linking to THIS story!

Cue PB and Billy: [Enter stage left] Aha! Bias! Prejudice! Where is your neutrality! Where is your link to an article that is favourable to creationism! Etc.! Etc.! ETC.!

Cue PB and Billy linking us to more sites who believe that the world started 6000 years ago with a talking snake!

Wait till we hear that it is all a conspiracy by the world scientific community who have deliberately misleading the public, taking millions in public funds in the GREATEST conspiracy the world has ever seen!

And the TRUE answer is a literal interpretation of a primitive bronzr age creation myth(whose main character is a talking snake).

Does anyone else not find it funny that there are no atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddist, Shinto, Liberal Christian/Jewish/Muslim biblical creationists?

I mean if their "evidence" was so strong it would be accepted everywhere but it is limited to fundamentalists-funny that...

and evolution is accepted by those of all faiths and none-funny that...

It seems to me that an even better title for a book about creationist pseudo-scientists would be "Rong Numbers." :>)

Andrew McIntosh; come out, come out, wherever you are.

Just in case some people have diffs in reading this free - ie not seeing the sposor ad -- try turning off ad blocking in your computer protection programme
enjoy
alan

Just in case some people have diffs in reading this free - ie not seeing the sposor ad -- try turning off ad blocking in your computer protection programme
enjoy
alan

A fascinating interview with Ron Numbers from salon.com...

I recently talked with a Christian listener who actually didn't need much persuading that evolution was correct. His main problem - and this was INTRIGUING - was that he didn't want to hedge his bets on the wrong side. He postulated that if belief in creationism is necessary to enter the Pearly Gates, then he wants to maintain that belief regardless of the facts. If belief in creationism is not necessary to enter the Pearly Gates, then his belief in creationism will not have hurt him.

There's a plethora of problems with this attitude. Most Christians wouldn't claim that someone is damned to hell for belief in evolution, for example. But so long as this irrational religious paranoia continues unabated, these sorts of bizarre worldviews will persist.

John Wright #6;

It's an interesting view and not a surprising one to me. Early indoctrination dies very hard if ever at all. That's what Thomas Aquinas meant when he said give me a 5 year old and I'll give you a Christian for life.

I think all thoughts can be sorted into three categories, what you know or think you know to be true, what you don't know but which someday could be known, and what is beyond knowing. Dr. Miller, the creationists, and the Inquisition see it exactly the same way, as a battle over turf to determine which ideas fall into which categories. The early church had a free hand because there was very little scientific knowledge to challenge whatever they said is true, the earth is flat, it is the center of the universe, god created life and man for a purpose. Scientists starting with Galileo kept pushing the church further to one side by crowding out their space in what was unknown and unknowable by shrinking them. Short of the rack, they have to fit their theology into those two spaces. The creationists including McIntosh want to roll back what is actually known by casting doubt on it so that they can fit their own theories in an enlarged space of what is unknown. But George Orwell had an entirely different and unique idea which he expressed in his novel "1984" and that was "doublethink" the ability to believe two mutually contradictory ideas at the same time with equal conviction. In this state of mind, one would have no problem being both a creationist and evolutionist simultaneously. Why would people do this? It requires a sort of subconsciously self induced schizophrenia. In 1984 it was a matter of survival, they had to or the state would find them out and take them into the dungeons of the Ministry of Truth for a re-education. Unsurprisingly, their methods were the same as those used in the inquisition, and just as effective.

Mark- Having had the chance to talk to this individual I am convinced that there was something roughly Orwellian about his thought process. 'Doublethink' may be just the word to describe it. And yes, he did admit that he'd been brought up as a Christian from the day he was born; it is this lifelong worldview, and the lifestyle that accompanies it, from which he feels unwilling to withdraw. The power of such simple human emotions as nostalgia or homesickness or wisftulness is, IMO, a large part of a sociological understanding of religious tradition and adherence to the various doctrines that form a part of it, such as creationism.

In doublethink, what is known and unknown can overlap. There is no clear demarcation. To make this happen, you have to be irrational. Imagine believeing 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 at the same time. It's hard for a normal mind to conceive of this, let alone perform this feat of mental gymnastics. But that is what your friend and others who have to reconcile science and religion must confront. To do this, they imagine their religion's doctrine as a metaphor. The word's don't mean what that say they do. They mean something else entirely. What? Each religion or sect has a different interpretation. You can shop 'til you drop finding one you like. Creations will not accept this, they insist on eliminating whatever scientific knowledge exists which is inconvenient to their own theology. If they can't completely discredit it, then at least they will try to cast doubt on it. That's why they are a menace to society. They would impose it on everyone through the public school system. In the US at least for now, they seem to have a steep uphill battle. I only hope it goes vertical.

Its work noting, Seventh Day Adventism founders really were off the wall with their dreams and prophecies etc. I'm not surprised an intelligent person like Numbers fell away from it. It is very much an unwarranted addition to the bible.

A friend of mine was a SDA and it was very much judiazed Christianity, ie about obeying the law to earn merit, contrary to Romans and Galations. The gospel is that salvation cannot be earned, that it is a gracious gift given through the mystery of the crucification and resurrection;- a free pardon and a fresh start, that is why it is Good News (gospel). Trying to earn your way into heaven your whole life is not good news at all, in contrast.

I liked this comment from Ron Numbers, I dont think there is any need for this debate to get nasty, that never persuades anyone of anything anyway and its not scientific;-

"Unlike many people, I haven't gone out of my way to attack or ridicule critics of evolution. I know some of the people I've written about. They're good people. I know it's not because they're stupid that they are creationists. I'm talking about all my family, too, who are still creationists. So that easy explanation that so many anti-creationists use -- that they're just illiterate hillbillies -- doesn't have any appeal to me, although I'm quite happy to admit that there are some really stupid creationists."

PB

Some of the comments regarding people who believe in creationism because they were brought up to do are really strange. I was brought up to believe in evolution, but have come round to a creationist viewpoint after weighing the evidence. My convictions have become stronger as my scientific career has progressed (I have a PhD in theoretical physics and run a company making scientific instruments). The idea that creationists somehow lack scientific credibility just doesn't ring true.

Will:

The link to the 'interview' took me to:

"Big Breasts for Dummies"

I can take care of the former if Mark can take care of the latter.

Peace,
Maureen

I'm doing my best to bail out my end of this leaky rowboat Maureen. Can't you see that, after all you're only five feet away at the other end.

"Some of the comments regarding people who believe in creationism because they were brought up to do are really strange. I was brought up to believe in evolution, but have come round to a creationist viewpoint after weighing the evidence. My convictions have become stronger as my scientific career has progressed (I have a PhD in theoretical physics and run a company making scientific instruments). The idea that creationists somehow lack scientific credibility just doesn't ring true."

I bet you are a fundamentalist Christian?

Ithe idea that creationists do lack scientific crediblity is sadly true-and has been shown time and time again.

Dylan Dog

ref post 14

Dont see any subtle contradiction for lambasting a creationist with a phd in physics for having no scientific credibility do you?

Its in there if you keep looking, honest!

PB

I don't. When it comes to physics he may be a genius but when it comes to chemistry and biology, he could be a moron. I've seen this many times where people with substantial knowledge in one area know little or nothing in others. Their knowledge is deep but narrow. However, as those pseudo scientists who believe in creation science have demonstrated even in their own area of specialization, when they get out of their laboratories and daily work and sit up at night wondering what life and existance are all about, they revert to the same state of mind as primitives who looked up in the darkness at the night sky and wondered WHY and who like frightened children who were scared of death they wanted and invented an explanation to comfort themselves. These irrational people will use the full spectrum of the scientific knowledge they have learned, twist it into whatever shape it has to take on and pare away whichever parts get in the way to invent just such fairy tales to soothe their own childish fears of death. They are pitiful and contemptable. What they really need is to grow up.

"Dylan Dog

ref post 14

Dont see any subtle contradiction for lambasting a creationist with a phd in physics for having no scientific credibility do you?

Its in there if you keep looking, honest!

PB"

No contradiction whatsoever! simply because a creationist bases their opinon not on evidence, not on science but their extreme faith which tells them that a primitive bronze age creation myth(whose main character is a talking snake!) is true!

It has absoulutely NOTHING to do with science!

Again why are there no Atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Sikh, Shinto, Buddist etc etc Biblical(nb. please note I said Biblical!) creationists?

Also as I have pointed out before creationists do NOT represent Christianity, intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution.

DD

So a phd in physics who believes in creationism has no scientific credibility????

oookkkaaayyy....

Here are some muslim, jewish and hindu creationists for you fyi;-

PB

PB

Again is his opinion based on evidence or on religion or on his faith?

Got that? okkkaayyyyy?

Already dealt with the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu creationists...

But here goes again...

Jew's and Muslims share the same Abrahamic creation myth as Christians but not all of these groups are creationists only the extremists.

Could you tell me why there are no Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist, agnostic, Buddist etc etc Hindu creationists? mmmm wonder why that is?

Probabaly the same reason why there are no atheist, Hindu, Sikh, Buddist, agnostic etc etc Biblical creationists...

Work it our for yourself(I thought I made the point very clear in my first post-but nevermind)

G'day

DD

DD

I am sure I could find you some Jewish and Muslims who have become biblical creationists, but I doubt you are really interested in listening to anything.

If you believe in biblical creationism you no longer adhere to your previous faith, geddit?

PB

Oh PB I am interested in listening!

Errrr Jews and Muslims share the same creation myth and there are creationists from those groupings. Strangely though Jews (percentage wise) have less creationists, which is rather strange given that it is their creation myth. That point that you are trying to make was never in question.

"If you believe in biblical creationism you no longer adhere to your previous faith, geddit?"

Oh yes I certainly do! that was my whole point! gotthat? ie., it has nothing to do with evidence or science(or reason for that matter) but is has everything to do with their fundamentalist faith which forces them to take a literal interpretation of their creation myth. Hence the reason why their are no atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Buddist, Shinto, Sikh etc etc Biblical creationists(please note I said B-I-B-L-I-C-A-L creationists). Also creationism does NOT represent the whole of Christianity many Christians have no probs with evolution.

Thanks again you have proved my point! geddit?

Cheers!

DD

PB Re:Post 20

I am very interested in listeninng to anything, I am not blinded by dogmatism!

Re: Jews and Muslims-already dealt with in Post 19. But errrr of course their are Jewish creationists! might be something to do with the OLd Testament being their holy book-I thought that was obvious!

"If you believe in biblical creationism you no longer adhere to your previous faith, geddit?"

Thank you! you admit that it is all to do with faith! hence the reason why there no Atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Sikh, Shinto, Buddist etc etc Biblical(nb. please note I said Biblical!) creationists. Cheers you have proved my point perfectly! geddit?

Many many thanks

DD

Dylan Dog wrote (Post 22):
"Thank you! you admit that it is all to do with faith! hence the reason why there no Atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Sikh, Shinto, Buddist etc etc Biblical(nb. please note I said Biblical!) creationists. Cheers you have proved my point perfectly! geddit?"

Yes, it is all to do with faith - Biblical Creation is a faith position; and Evolution is a faith position. Our scientific investigation begins from an a priori presumption of belief - whether life was created by a Supreme Being revealed in the Bible as Jehovah (the Eternal), or whether life was produced by the Goddess Evolution over millions of years. Either way, it requires faith.

See my other post.

But anyway thank you for admitting that it is all to do with faith on your part that creationists form a priori presumption of belief that the world started 6000 years ago in 6 days with 2 nudists and a talking snake. Wheras evoltion is based on evidence that is insurmountable and freely and easily available hence the reason why it is accepted by those of all faiths and none.

ps. Why is your creation myuth true and all the rest false?

Thanks gain for proving my point.

Re- post 24 (Dylan Dog):

Evolution based on evidence? Nonsense! Evolution is based on a particular interpretation of the evidence. My point is that both creationism and evolutionism begin with an assumption based on faith. It is then down to Science to study the evidence and see whether the facts support a particular explanation of origins. Honesty in science would force scientists to admit that none of their evolutionary interpretations are supported by the facts of science - it is mere mythology. Has anyone ever found the missing link to prove that one species ever evolved into another?

All that creationists are pleading for is a level playing-field - honesty, integrity and fair play both in science and religion.

From what I have read in a review of Ron Numbers' book, he treats everyone with common decency and respect, whether they are creationists or evolutionists. This is to be commended. Science can only make real progress when people with differing philosophies and opinions are prepared to show mutual respect for one another.

DD

I applaud your conclusion that both evolution and creationism are faith positions.

If I take a different tack...

1) How many interim species fossils have ever been found where the interim features have no obvious function?

eg any "birds" that had semi-wings that were neither limbs nor wings?

I have been asking for weeks why there has never been a fossil found with transitional scales/feathers... why has there never been a bat fossil found where the wings were again of no use for flying but they had obviously gone further than arms?

(Many people have posted hyperlinks on the theory of the evolution of feathers but nobody has posted any actual evidence, ie a fossil).

2) I have yet to get an answer to this question on this blog; what standard of evidence is required of both evolution and creationism in order to be accepted as fact? There has to be the same standard of evidence for both.

3) Scientific methods requires a theory to be replicated in a lab for it to be accepted. Why si evolution nto required to meet this criteria?

4) Andy McIntosh gave a lab test on this blog (at the very start) that if done would blow his view on evolution and TSLOT out of the water. He said it had never been done, but I dont see any of the evolutionsts even broaching this subject on this blog. Convenient that?

PB

Also DD

The question could be turned around...

why are there so many people from so many different religious backgrounds (and I believe none) who simply do not believe that evolution stacks up as a theory?

PB

Simple PB it is their faith that drives them!

If these faiths had actual evidence then it would be accepted across the board i.e., we would have Hindu Biblical creationsists and Biblical Hindu creationists(because they are mutually exclusive) etc but sadly we do not.

That was point that I made and you (and finally admitted to).

Indeed the only idea that is accepted by those of all faiths and none is...evolution.

As I said if the evidence for Biblical creationsim was so strong it would be accepted across religious (and non-religious) boundaries, indeed it is not even accepted by all Christians ie., Rowan Williams, Pope JPII,https://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm
Are they wrong? and if so why?

I think (if you agree) that we carry on this debate on the top thread ie., the latest Andy McIntosh one to aviod repeating ourselves and trawling through this blog trying to find replies? sometimes it is difficult to keep on top of everything!

DD

DD

Not sure what you think I admitted to and not sure that I agree with what you think you mean.

I'll move onto next entry from here too...

PB