-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Evolution VS Bible
- Thread starter Fuck yo Honda
- Start date
yougene
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,336
"Intelligent" Design theory is just selectively watered down molecular biology constructs. They adopt the idea of irreducible complexity but leave out potential explanations of emergence with something along the lines of "Jesus did it."
The evidence is insufficient for evolution. But it's still the most logically likely explanation. I mean, no one can prove that entropy is a universal law of the universe, but I'm still inclined to believe it.
zorn
Bluelighter
It's certainly true that most creationists are ignorant of the theory of evolution and the overwhelming evidence for it. I've certainly noticed this, when I talk to people about it. You can see it in the discussion of evolution vs. creationism here at BL, if you do a search in the archives -- take a look! And keep in mind that these are the creationists who feel they know enough about evolution to go out and argue that the entire scientific community is foolish, not just people who are skeptical or think to themselves "I dunno, sounds fishy to me."
And even if you look at the "actual scientists" who are creationists (for which "a good number" is quite a bit of an overestimate), you in fact don't normally see people who just think "the evidence is insufficient for evolution." What you see -- almost without fail -- are people who have a prior ideological commitment to believing in creationism (and disbelieving in evolution). Their religious beliefs require them to believe in a certain scenario of creation, so they believe in it. Anything that contradicts that scenario... well, it's got to be wrong, then. The one sorta-scientist I have known who was a creationist (and I've known lots of scientists!) was a budding astronomer, who I had a long talk with about evolution & creationism one day. He wasn't a stupid guy. He perfectly understood the evidence & arguments I laid out before him. But his position was, "the Bible says things were created in 7*24 hours, so that's what happened. Any evidence that says otherwise, it's got to be wrong somehow." He didn't have any objection to my argument, and he didn't "judge the evidence insufficient for evolution." He just didn't care what the evidence had to say.
There's a reason you see lots of religious scientists who accept evolution and lots of non-religious scientists who do... but the few creationist scientists you see are always literalist Christians (or Moslems, etc.) The only way you can know the facts but still come to the creationist conclusion is if you approach it having already decided to come to that conclusion.
The thing is, creationism (in the anti-evolution sense of the word) isn't just some debated issue where you can find reasonable positions on both sides. I understand that it might seem that way to you (or not), if you're not familiar with the immense amounts of scientific knowledge at odds with creationism. But believing in creationism requires you to reject enormous swathes of modern science and the facts upon which it's based. It's not just biology creationists have to throw out wholesale, it's also nearly all of astronomy, geology, paleontology, cosmology, big chunks of chemistry and physics... it's truly astonishing just how much you have to get rid of.
And not only do you have to think all of that knowledge is complete nonsense, you also have to believe that essentially all scientists are just morons or blind. After all, biologists & other scientists don't just say "we think evolution probably could have happened," or "I'm lean towards an age of 4,000 million years for the Earth," -- they say things like "there is enormous evidence that organisms evolved from a common ancestor," and "there's no way the Earth could be only 6,000 years old, that's ludicrous." To be a creationist, you have to think that you -- with whatever cursory knowledge you have of the theories & evidence behind the physical sciences -- are understanding things that no researcher ever thought of. Look at some of the arguments creationists make: for example, that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves evolution is impossible. They have to think that this argument, (generally presented in terms comprehensible to a child), which they easily understood, somehow just never occurred to any actual evolutionary biologists,... and that the biologists were too blind to accept when they did hear it. I mean, we're talking enormous hubris here.
Creationists aren't all drooling morons. Some of them are quite smart about plenty of things. No doubt most of them imagine they're being reasonable. Yet that's not the same as actually being reasonable. To be a creationist, you have to either be ignorant of the relevant evidence & scientific facts (I'm sure most fall into this category), or else just hold very stupid beliefs -- because you have not have let yourself really think through your position, or because you had decided what the answer "had to" be before you started.
yougene
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,336
There is plenty of data that supports evolution. The modern synthesis is a whole other can of worms.
then there are those of us who believe in evolution, but then consider the random mutations as parts which were actually orchestrated.
it's like the writing of a story. in order for a story to make sense, the context needs to be filled with data to fulfill the structure and rules of the environment in which the story takes place. a good writer sets certain rules in the universe they create, and sticks to them no matter how seemingly inconsequential.
Now, in order for this organic life (as we know it) to exist within the confines of the fundamental laws of nature (which are also, i think, predetermined), certain processes are required. Processes such as evolutionary change. Yes, not all mutation is advantageous, but had it been so, the quality of this "writing" would be poor.
is this not reasonable?
Not to mention the existence of life itself.
Scientists really have no good explanation for how the first cell came into being. The chances of such a thing happening spontaneously (or gradually) through natural processes is so astronomically low as to be inconceivable. I don't doubt that it *did* happen through a "natural" process but the only way that it could happen that way is that God created the universe in such a way that it would happen.
There's also the whole issue of radical Materialism which so many evolutionists subscribe to - the idea that our capacity to perceive beauty, truth, and goodness is nothing more than a chance happening. Oh, and that there's no such thing as free will. I believe that our bodies arose from "natural" processes guided by God, but that our souls came from God alone.
If the Big Bang had been one one-thousandth of a degree hotter none of us would exist. Think about that.
Scientists really have no good explanation for how the first cell came into being. The chances of such a thing happening spontaneously (or gradually) through natural processes is so astronomically low as to be inconceivable. I don't doubt that it *did* happen through a "natural" process but the only way that it could happen that way is that God created the universe in such a way that it would happen.
There's also the whole issue of radical Materialism which so many evolutionists subscribe to - the idea that our capacity to perceive beauty, truth, and goodness is nothing more than a chance happening. Oh, and that there's no such thing as free will. I believe that our bodies arose from "natural" processes guided by God, but that our souls came from God alone.
If the Big Bang had been one one-thousandth of a degree hotter none of us would exist. Think about that.
New
Bluelight Crew
Accidents are funny like that.
rantNrave
Bluelighter
BINGO!!!
Ignoring the facts, basically sticking your head in the sand and saying,"Nah, nah, nah, I'm not listening!"
Well, they can't wish it away, and they can pray for it to be true all they want. It won't make it so. So pray away! The rest of us will be going about our lives.
Look, I'm not saying God is dead. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't divine ( although, odds are against it ). What I am saying is that the Bible, is a 2000 year old ( at least ) explaination of the the world and the universe, seen through a VERY biased set of eyes that has been edited by MEN. If the Bible is GOD's holy word, written from on high and divine enough NOT to question, what business would man, ANY man, have doing an edit, or even an "interpretation". But instead we have the Catholic Bible, the King James Bible, the New International Bible and countless others. Don't even get me started on The Book of Mormon. Over the centuries, people have not only interpreted it, editted it, included this and excluded that, but they have defended their hairsplitting by deciding that all those who don't believe the way they do... should DIE! HERETICS!!!!! UNBELIEVERS!!!!! INFIDELS!!!! BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!!!
I am quite willing to forgive and use some of their "Christian" values on the ever-so forgetful Christians. I'm quite satified that I now have the right to say,"NO THANK YOU" and close my door to those who come knocking an professing.
What was it Ghandi said about Christians? I think it went something like, "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ"
God, please, save me from your followers!
If God truly had something to say, he wouldn't tell some idiot preacher who is more worried about whats in the collection plate, or some guru on a mountain that no one would believe. Here's a clue, what do we do with those people who say things like "God told me to______ (? fill in the blank)? That right, we put them in a rubber room, and give them heavy anti-psychotic medications like Thorazine.
No, dear people. If GOD, omnipotent, almighty, architect of the Universe GOD had something to say, he'd write it across the sky with his finger for ALL to see. No ambiguity, no interpretation, nothing to be lost in translation.
Keep looking up!
Last edited:
rantNrave
Bluelighter
Many of the rest of us don't share your "beliefs" in one way or another, or not at all.
It's true and heres a secret...we're different in lots of other ways too.
One of ther biggest diffences though is that one about the world ending in a Book of Revelations inspired apocolyptic nightmare.
If the World were 100 PEOPLE:
50 would be female
50 would be male
20 would be children
There would be 80 adults,
14 of whom would be 65 and older
There would be:
61 Asians
12 Europeans
13 Africans
14 people from the Western Hemisphere
There would be:
31 Christians
21 Muslims
14 Hindus
6 Buddhists
12 people who believe in other religions
16 people who not be aligned with a religion
17 would speak Chinese
8 would speak Hindustani
8 would speak English
7 would speak Spanish
4 would speak Arabic
4 would speak Russian
52 would speak other languages
82 would be able to read and write; 18 would not
1 would have a college education
1 would own a computer
75 people would have some supply of food and a place to
shelter them from the wind and the rain, but 25 would not
1 would be dying of starvation
17 would be undernourished
15 would be overweight
83 would have access to safe drinking water
17 people would have no clean, safe water to drink
Sources: Fritz Erickson, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay and John A. Vonk, University of Northern Colorado,
Is it fair to the 69 other people for them to caught up in your Armegeddon?
We need to stop learning how to kill each other more efficiently and learn that we all depend on each other.
Religion has been a consistant excuse for humans to kill each other throughout our 8000 years of recorded history.
Morality is not exclusive to religion! People who are of other religions, or none at all ,can be just as ethical as anyone else. A common code of ethic is the first problem.
But hell, we as a species can't even figure out a Bill of Human Rights in the UN, let alone a code of ethical behavior that permiates from it. Communist are too busy trying to control everyone and Capitolists are too busy trying to make money off the rest.
See it isn't "elitism for dummies" you want to borrow. It's more like my copy of "A New Earth"
It's true and heres a secret...we're different in lots of other ways too.
One of ther biggest diffences though is that one about the world ending in a Book of Revelations inspired apocolyptic nightmare.
If the World were 100 PEOPLE:
50 would be female
50 would be male
20 would be children
There would be 80 adults,
14 of whom would be 65 and older
There would be:
61 Asians
12 Europeans
13 Africans
14 people from the Western Hemisphere
There would be:
31 Christians
21 Muslims
14 Hindus
6 Buddhists
12 people who believe in other religions
16 people who not be aligned with a religion
17 would speak Chinese
8 would speak Hindustani
8 would speak English
7 would speak Spanish
4 would speak Arabic
4 would speak Russian
52 would speak other languages
82 would be able to read and write; 18 would not
1 would have a college education
1 would own a computer
75 people would have some supply of food and a place to
shelter them from the wind and the rain, but 25 would not
1 would be dying of starvation
17 would be undernourished
15 would be overweight
83 would have access to safe drinking water
17 people would have no clean, safe water to drink
Sources: Fritz Erickson, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay and John A. Vonk, University of Northern Colorado,
Is it fair to the 69 other people for them to caught up in your Armegeddon?
We need to stop learning how to kill each other more efficiently and learn that we all depend on each other.
Religion has been a consistant excuse for humans to kill each other throughout our 8000 years of recorded history.
Morality is not exclusive to religion! People who are of other religions, or none at all ,can be just as ethical as anyone else. A common code of ethic is the first problem.
But hell, we as a species can't even figure out a Bill of Human Rights in the UN, let alone a code of ethical behavior that permiates from it. Communist are too busy trying to control everyone and Capitolists are too busy trying to make money off the rest.
See it isn't "elitism for dummies" you want to borrow. It's more like my copy of "A New Earth"
just because i believe in a higher power/creator, it doesn't make me a blind, pigheaded, fundamentalist christian. it aint my apocalypse, so i'd be stuck with the rest of you. still from your response, I can see that you actually view the loud few who take the word of the big books as literal words of the almighty and are willing to kill for them as the norm when in reality they are nothing of the sort. the masses of meek and quiet regilous people who you do not notice would rather welcome and feed their brother and neighbour irrespective of their own beliefs.
but regardless of this...
you speak of fairness and the lack thereof as being somehow a point to not consider the subject as legit, hate to break it to you, buddy, but life, in general, is anything but fair.![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
fair can only be dolled out from a sense of compassion and understanding. to write off masses of people on the presumptions you carry of a demographic you may believe they are a part of is not compassionate. it is not fair either.
if someone wants to hold on to the belief that you are forever damned and not worthy as they are, even then, what does that really matter to you? it is only an opinion.
i'm all for a copy of "a new earth" but you know the content of such a book can't be blinded by the loud and obnoxious few who are screaming for a monopoloy of the attention, ironically to their own detriment.
but regardless of this...
you speak of fairness and the lack thereof as being somehow a point to not consider the subject as legit, hate to break it to you, buddy, but life, in general, is anything but fair.
fair can only be dolled out from a sense of compassion and understanding. to write off masses of people on the presumptions you carry of a demographic you may believe they are a part of is not compassionate. it is not fair either.
if someone wants to hold on to the belief that you are forever damned and not worthy as they are, even then, what does that really matter to you? it is only an opinion.
i'm all for a copy of "a new earth" but you know the content of such a book can't be blinded by the loud and obnoxious few who are screaming for a monopoloy of the attention, ironically to their own detriment.
bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
Wow, up to page two, never did I think I'd see this debate reduced down to 120 character tweets. Kinda like a blogger I read who is writing a novel on twitter.
rachamim
Bluelighter
Zorn: "(Speaking about Creationists, emphasis solely mine) THEY say things LIKE...": No generalisations there, right? Do all Evolutionists agree on all major points? Of course NOT. Ergo, how can you even make a statements like the one I am highlighting?
"Zorn has known only 1 scientist who was a Creationist and Zorn knows ALOT of scientists.": I am a degree Botanist and not only am I a Creationist (in that I am a theist and believe that G-D is responsible for all existence) but I can accurately say that most intelligent people on both sides of the divide (an uneccessary divide) will quite easily conceed that they cannot definatively make a case 1 way or the other.
If one talks about scientists one might consider Einstein as a sort of watermark. Einstein was a theist.
"Look at all the Creationists on BL and THEY are the ones who believe they know enough to challenge Evolutionists!": Yes, because a Harm Reduction site attracts so many Creationism experts.
"The few Creationist-Scientists whom Zorn knows, are ALWAYS CHRISTIAN LITERALISTS.": Except when they are not. I am a Jew by the way.
"Creationists only posses scant knowledge of relevant subject matter (biology, cosmology and so on).":Yes, because you have qualified this how?
"Most Creationists are intelligent, just not reasobale ot knowledgeable...": No "arrogance" there...
"Zorn has known only 1 scientist who was a Creationist and Zorn knows ALOT of scientists.": I am a degree Botanist and not only am I a Creationist (in that I am a theist and believe that G-D is responsible for all existence) but I can accurately say that most intelligent people on both sides of the divide (an uneccessary divide) will quite easily conceed that they cannot definatively make a case 1 way or the other.
If one talks about scientists one might consider Einstein as a sort of watermark. Einstein was a theist.
"Look at all the Creationists on BL and THEY are the ones who believe they know enough to challenge Evolutionists!": Yes, because a Harm Reduction site attracts so many Creationism experts.
"The few Creationist-Scientists whom Zorn knows, are ALWAYS CHRISTIAN LITERALISTS.": Except when they are not. I am a Jew by the way.
"Creationists only posses scant knowledge of relevant subject matter (biology, cosmology and so on).":Yes, because you have qualified this how?
"Most Creationists are intelligent, just not reasobale ot knowledgeable...": No "arrogance" there...
rachamim
Bluelighter
Rant: "There are many Bibles, all interpreted by men.": There is only one Bible. You negate the original by arguing about the interprative texts. It is a non-sensical argument. Because later texts were tampered with the original somehow loses validity? How does THAT work?
"Rant denigrating Christianity.": Although my opinion of Christianity is not far from yours, I see you making an argument against theism by castigating Christianity. Again, this is non-sensical. What of the essence? Judaisim. Christianity is merely a corruption of the original and as it is a corruption in and of itself its Scriptural foundation cannot help but be heavily flawed. That being so, it has absolutely no bearing on theism as a whole.
"Ghandi and Christians...": Such a wise man, yes? Wonder what his 2 nieces would say. The man was a stinking pediophile and admitted his entire philosphy was BS when he begged Mountbatten to stop the Punjab from imploding. He was a moron who thought people should give up bsex, as he poked his nieces, thought people should revel in poverty as the British gave him a generous stipend and so on. His thoughts on Christianity make sense, but quoting him seems to hurt your position more than help it.
"If G-D had something to say, HE would NOT be whispering in the ear of some mendicant but rather would do so in an irrefurable manner...": Because G-D is an egotist who only craves adulation. The idea is a "Leap of Faith," to trust, to persevere, not to gain instant gratification. HIS irrefutable manner is self evident in creation.
Big Bang can be explained, but explain the first iota of tangible exostence. How can "something" evolve from "nothing." If we follow your train of thought, there is going to be an absolute beginning. How could it have initiated?
As for the irrefutable aspects of Evolution, there IS a very good reason why it is called the "THEORY of Evolution."
"Rant denigrating Christianity.": Although my opinion of Christianity is not far from yours, I see you making an argument against theism by castigating Christianity. Again, this is non-sensical. What of the essence? Judaisim. Christianity is merely a corruption of the original and as it is a corruption in and of itself its Scriptural foundation cannot help but be heavily flawed. That being so, it has absolutely no bearing on theism as a whole.
"Ghandi and Christians...": Such a wise man, yes? Wonder what his 2 nieces would say. The man was a stinking pediophile and admitted his entire philosphy was BS when he begged Mountbatten to stop the Punjab from imploding. He was a moron who thought people should give up bsex, as he poked his nieces, thought people should revel in poverty as the British gave him a generous stipend and so on. His thoughts on Christianity make sense, but quoting him seems to hurt your position more than help it.
"If G-D had something to say, HE would NOT be whispering in the ear of some mendicant but rather would do so in an irrefurable manner...": Because G-D is an egotist who only craves adulation. The idea is a "Leap of Faith," to trust, to persevere, not to gain instant gratification. HIS irrefutable manner is self evident in creation.
Big Bang can be explained, but explain the first iota of tangible exostence. How can "something" evolve from "nothing." If we follow your train of thought, there is going to be an absolute beginning. How could it have initiated?
As for the irrefutable aspects of Evolution, there IS a very good reason why it is called the "THEORY of Evolution."
tathra
bluelighter
^ yes exactly, its a THEORY, not a HYPOTHESIS. a theory is as close as you can get to fact in science, because scientists are always looking for contradictions, and nobody is ever 100% certain about anything. finding contradictions to theories is how science evolves and adapts and continues to be as right as humanly possible
rantNrave
Bluelighter
Part of what I'm trying to tell you is that evolution, at least the part about human evolution, is no longer hypothesis or theory. With the advent of DNA testing many wonderful discoveries have been uncovered. There is a project that tested the DNA of 300,000 people from all over the planet to find common genetic markers. These markers were chosen for geography, sex , race, and other factors. Now whats important is they were not looking for just what was different between these 300,000 people but also for what was the same. By doing that they were able to trace the origin of our species to geographic points on the map where collectvely we shared "trait A" but group 1diverged ( and went west )from group 2 ( who went east) by tracing these markers backward through time and migration of the human species. They have traced our origin of our species backward in time and place to Africa, where all genetic markers converge to one place on the map.THIS ISN'T THEORY ANYMORE!
tathra
bluelighter
i'm well aware of the "mitochondrial eve", but how exactly does that prove creationism and disprove evolution? nature is fucking harsh. not all families survive. this was especially true long ago, when the total human population on the planet was <10,000 (most of human history). its very likely that the other groups decendant's could've died off entirely, back when the homo sapiens sapiens population was even in the hundreds yet, or perhaps their distinct mitochondrial lineage could've been bred out. OR it could be that the study isnt 100% accurate, since its DESIGNED to go back to a single progenitor.
besides, the convergence is tens of thousands years back (something like 150,000 iirc), not six thousand. i'd say thats -1 point for creationists.
besides, the convergence is tens of thousands years back (something like 150,000 iirc), not six thousand. i'd say thats -1 point for creationists.
zorn
Bluelighter
Oh, that's not what I'm attacking at all. If you believe in "directed" evolution then you accept evolution, so you're safe as far as the scientific evidence for evolution is concerned. The 'creationism' that requires ignorance and/or stupidity and/or deliberate blindness is the kind holding that life was magicked into existence in more-or-less its present form. Theistic or 'guided' evolution is basically consistent, as far as I know, with the known scientific facts about the history of life on Earth. (It's certainly not "obviously idiotic" the way young-Earth creationism is.)
[ Now, that being said, I personally don't think this viewpoint makes much sense. Not because of "scientific" reasons per se but more for philosophical/moral ones. To believe the evolution was divinely guided you have to believe that the god or gods wiped out 99+% of all the lifeforms they ever created, that they occasionally destroyed entire branches of life with a mass extinction. You have to believe that they created organisms like Onchocerca volvulus, a tiny parasitical worm which can only live by reproducing inside living humans; when its young migrate to the surface of the eyes, they often leave their victims blind (hundreds of thousands of people are blind b/c of this "river blindness.") Or like the parasitic wasps which lay their eggs inside flies or caterpillars; the growing larvae feed on their unwilling host, eating it from the inside out. But these are really just philosophical arguments against claims of personal, interventionist gods. As far as the scientific evidence goes, you can't rule out theistic evolution, as long as leaves space for natural selection to do some of the work. ]
You're right that there's no known explanation for the emergence of the first cells. Single-celled (and less-than-cellular) organisms don't leave much in the way of fossils
, and we have very few undisturbed matierals of that immense age even if they did. So in the absence of any surviving primitive forms, we can only speculate as to how they might have come about. (Incidentally, this fact makes a mockery of another common creationist claim -- that researchers are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to promote evolution even though they know it's false, because it's necessary to provide an acceptable atheistic explanation of life.)But this doesn't mean there won't be found a natural process in the future that led to the first cell -- as you seem to agree. These God-of-the-Gaps arguments have a bad history. So I'm not sure why you'd say that the only way it could happen is that God created the universe so it would. The universe is a very, very big place; if the conditions anywhere were such as to support life, we'd find ourselves there -- whether some gods put us there or no.
Actually, the Big Bang was of infinite temperature -- that's what's meant by saying it's a singularity. So this isn't even wrong; it just doesn't make any sense.
zorn
Bluelighter
Mitochondrial Eve doesn't imply that all humans are descended from one woman! Lots of times geneticists will make that point when describing this research. What mDNA Eve implies is that all humans are descended from the same woman along the matrilineal line. That is, my mother's-mother's-mother's....-mother is the same as your mother's-mother's....-mother. It actually turns out that in a steady population of a reasonable size, it's essentially unavoidable for this to happen. You can see this if you think about it a little: in a steady population, each couple has on average two kids that survive to reproduce, one son & one daughter. Sometimes though a couple will have more than 1 daughter, or less than 1 daughter. So the different mDNAs will "drift" up and down in frequency. But if an mDNA drifts down to 0 frequency, it will be forever extinct and so never come back. So just by this process of "drift," a single mDNA will eventually come to dominate the population, because one-by-one the others will go extinct by chance. You can calculate the time necessary for this to happen, and it's actually pretty short for historically-sized populations.
This is why, for example, mDNA gives you a single mitochondrial Eve who lived ~180,000 years ago, but Y chromosomes give you a single Y-chromosome Adam who lived ~80,000 years ago. Neither were the sole humans alive at those times, just the only ones of their time to have current descendents along the direct female-line and male-line respectively. (The different patterns of male/female sex within & between groups gives you different "effective population sizes" and different fixing-times.)
zorn
Bluelighter
Ah, rachamim, but you've proved my point exactly!
1) First, it's not even clear whether you are a creationist in the sense I'm referring to. Note that the creationism I'm speaking of (as you would know if you'd read the earlier posts!) has absolutely nothing to do with whether you believe your god or gods created or "are responsible" for the universe. It has to do with whether you accept the empirical facts about the age of the Earth & universe, the relatedness of life on Earth (including human life) to each other, and its gradual evolution from life from a common ancestor. Creationists, as I (and many others) use the term in this context, are people who don't.
2) Indeed, you appear to be a literalist/fundamentalist Jew from what I can see, given your remarks on scripture and adherence to some of the wackier points of law. So it's hardly surprising to find you'd be a creationist (if indeed you are!) This is what we nearly always find with creationists -- they fundamentally believe in creationism because their preferred interpretation of their religious teachings require it. You always see the creationist arguments about the scientific evidence come later, when cognitive dissonance forces them to believe that the evidence mustn't show anything that disagrees with their pre-existing religious beliefs.
3) Finally, as you noticed
, I made many generalizations about the typical ignorance of creationists. While one example proves nothing, I'll just note that you're helping my case here:
You were clearly ignorant of this fact. Many, many creationists are, and so they often make this argument (and are often corrected just as I corrected you.) Now there's nothing wrong or shameful with being ignorant of the scientific meaning of "theory". Most non-scientists are. Everyone is ignorant of a lot of things -- I'm completely ignorant when it comes to auto transmissions, or your particular sub-sect of Judaism, for example. But what is wrong is starting from a basis of ignorance in a topic and inventing/repeating random claims about that topic.
I think that about covers it. A few random notes:
I'm not sure why you seem to have a weird issue with generalizations. We're talking about broad categories of people here; of course we're going to be generalizing -- the question is whether they're accurate generalizations or not. You don't seem to like mine, probably because you feel they reflect poorly on your views (or you didn't really read my post and think I'm attacking your views, when I'm not). If you think they're wrong, you're free to offer evidence to that effect. So far all I've seen is indignation.
Note that scientists do agree on an immense amount of what's known about the history of life on Earth, evolution, etc. After all, it's not like you go to Cambridge and learn one set of facts, then another at Harvard, another at IIT, and so on! That's one of the differences between science and (say) religion. The basics are well-established and agreed-on by almost everyone. (There are a handful of crackpots everywhere, I'd guess -- definitely in physics.) Of course there are lots of things different researchers disagree on -- those are things on the frontiers of research, that are not certain! You'll find lots of topics in evolution like that. (For example, did modern humans emerge from Africa ~80,000 years ago, or did they evolve globally from the hominids present worldwide from almost ~1,000,000 years ago?) But you won't find disagreement on things like "did humans evolve" or "is matter made out of atoms" -- those were settled long ago.
Oh, that's not arrogance. Arrogance would be if I said I was exceptionally reasonable & knowledgeable -- or at a minimum, if I said that all people who accepted evolution were all exceptionally reasonable & knowledgeable. (They're not, BTW.) This is just a negative judgment of another group.
Anyways, this may bother you, but it is a fact. Folks who are knowledgeable about the issues are overwhelming those who accept evolution. Take a look at the 1997 Gallup poll of scientists & engineers cited here, for example, or this Pew survey of scientists in the USA. The former found 95% of all scientists & engineers in the US accepted evolution; the latter that 87% of scientists accepted evolution, even when the question was framed in a way that seemed to exclude evolution directed by God. (Note that these surveys generally include a lot of people with science degrees who aren't active researchers; a survey of, say, active biologists would come up even more uniformly.) I encourage anyone who doubts this to drop an email to a couple of the professors in the biology department of their local research university -- just politely ask whether evolution really happened or not. See what answer you get...
1) First, it's not even clear whether you are a creationist in the sense I'm referring to. Note that the creationism I'm speaking of (as you would know if you'd read the earlier posts!) has absolutely nothing to do with whether you believe your god or gods created or "are responsible" for the universe. It has to do with whether you accept the empirical facts about the age of the Earth & universe, the relatedness of life on Earth (including human life) to each other, and its gradual evolution from life from a common ancestor. Creationists, as I (and many others) use the term in this context, are people who don't.
2) Indeed, you appear to be a literalist/fundamentalist Jew from what I can see, given your remarks on scripture and adherence to some of the wackier points of law. So it's hardly surprising to find you'd be a creationist (if indeed you are!) This is what we nearly always find with creationists -- they fundamentally believe in creationism because their preferred interpretation of their religious teachings require it. You always see the creationist arguments about the scientific evidence come later, when cognitive dissonance forces them to believe that the evidence mustn't show anything that disagrees with their pre-existing religious beliefs.
3) Finally, as you noticed
, I made many generalizations about the typical ignorance of creationists. While one example proves nothing, I'll just note that you're helping my case here:Now, the word 'theory' has a different meaning/connotation in science than it does in colloquial speech. Colloquially, a "theory" is something unproven, uncertain, up-in-the-air, less than a fact; something can be "just a theory." But in science, "theory" just means something like: a framework for making sense of a body of observations. Theories can be known with certainty to be true, or not-certain-but-probably-right, or up in the air, or just a guess, or known to completely wrong. The word just means they're a framework for understanding. That's why we have the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease, or the atomic theory of matter. Not because anyone thinks gravity or germs or atoms are "unproven" or "debatable" or "just a guess" -- but because, like evolution, they're conceptual frameworks for explaining a wide variety of observations.
You were clearly ignorant of this fact. Many, many creationists are, and so they often make this argument (and are often corrected just as I corrected you.) Now there's nothing wrong or shameful with being ignorant of the scientific meaning of "theory". Most non-scientists are. Everyone is ignorant of a lot of things -- I'm completely ignorant when it comes to auto transmissions, or your particular sub-sect of Judaism, for example. But what is wrong is starting from a basis of ignorance in a topic and inventing/repeating random claims about that topic.
I think that about covers it. A few random notes:
I'm not sure why you seem to have a weird issue with generalizations. We're talking about broad categories of people here; of course we're going to be generalizing -- the question is whether they're accurate generalizations or not. You don't seem to like mine, probably because you feel they reflect poorly on your views (or you didn't really read my post and think I'm attacking your views, when I'm not). If you think they're wrong, you're free to offer evidence to that effect. So far all I've seen is indignation.
Note that scientists do agree on an immense amount of what's known about the history of life on Earth, evolution, etc. After all, it's not like you go to Cambridge and learn one set of facts, then another at Harvard, another at IIT, and so on! That's one of the differences between science and (say) religion. The basics are well-established and agreed-on by almost everyone. (There are a handful of crackpots everywhere, I'd guess -- definitely in physics.) Of course there are lots of things different researchers disagree on -- those are things on the frontiers of research, that are not certain! You'll find lots of topics in evolution like that. (For example, did modern humans emerge from Africa ~80,000 years ago, or did they evolve globally from the hominids present worldwide from almost ~1,000,000 years ago?) But you won't find disagreement on things like "did humans evolve" or "is matter made out of atoms" -- those were settled long ago.
This is wrong. You can easily verify it by looking at the Wikipedia entry for Einstein or any other decent source. Einstein often threw around the term God, but he always was clear in that he meant a "feeling of transcendence" or "the mystery of the universe" or somesuch. He most emphatically did not believe in a personal god, such as the deities in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Please, go look up it.
Oh, this pattern isn't unique to BL; you see it pretty much everywhere creationists pop up. BL is just convenient. I've talked with / debated creationists all over the place, online & off, in various venues, and BL's archives are not atypical. You could just as easily look at standard creationist videos or tracts.
Oh, that's not arrogance. Arrogance would be if I said I was exceptionally reasonable & knowledgeable -- or at a minimum, if I said that all people who accepted evolution were all exceptionally reasonable & knowledgeable. (They're not, BTW.) This is just a negative judgment of another group.Anyways, this may bother you, but it is a fact. Folks who are knowledgeable about the issues are overwhelming those who accept evolution. Take a look at the 1997 Gallup poll of scientists & engineers cited here, for example, or this Pew survey of scientists in the USA. The former found 95% of all scientists & engineers in the US accepted evolution; the latter that 87% of scientists accepted evolution, even when the question was framed in a way that seemed to exclude evolution directed by God. (Note that these surveys generally include a lot of people with science degrees who aren't active researchers; a survey of, say, active biologists would come up even more uniformly.) I encourage anyone who doubts this to drop an email to a couple of the professors in the biology department of their local research university -- just politely ask whether evolution really happened or not. See what answer you get...