Creationists / Fundamentalists vs. Scientists

[Zzyzx]

.
Creationists / Fundamentalists vs. Scientists

Those who believe that their favorite 'God' created the universe, Earth, humans, and life forms (as claimed by ancient storytellers) display hypocrisy when 'debunking science' that conflicts with their stories – while accepting / embracing science when it benefits them.

Kenisaw says it well with:

Ah yes, the conspiracy slant. Tens of thousands of scientists across the globe, making up climate change. Or hundreds of thousands of scientists, over the last 150 years, from several different fields of study, fabricating all the billions of fossils and genetic information and geologic layers. A massive effort costing huge amounts of money and requiring silence from untold masses of human beings. And as always, the best proof that there is a conspiracy is the complete lack of proof that there is a conspiracy, because it has been hidden so well. Sure.

I would like to add, separately, that I hope you see the rather interesting double standard that cultists have in their dealing with science. They never claim science is wrong as it relates to their cell phones, or GPS, or computers, or medicines, or any time they use a plane or a car or a boat to get somewhere. Why? Because it doesn't contradict with their ancient manuscripts. But suddenly you get into the theory of evolution, and science is now some totally inaccurate mass conspiracy, incapable of getting anything right as it relates to the age of the planet or the progression of life.

It's a ludicrous self serving ploy.

Science cannot be both a highly effective and efficient form of investigation into the universe, AND a self-serving conspiracy whose main goal is hiding the truth about a particular god being that just so happens to be the basis of belief for the people claiming foul and evil intentions.

Additionally, Apologists apparently display hypocrisy when, for instance, archaeologists / anthropologists discover something that appears to verify an ancient tale, Creationists / Fundamentalists are quick to cite the study as though it was true and accurate. However, if the same archaeologists / anthropologists discover something that appears to dispute ancient tales, they are condemned as being part of the 'great conspiracy against religion'.

Likewise, most Creationists / Fundamentalists readily accept the benefits derived from science related to communication, transportation, food production and distribution, modern medicine, refrigeration / air conditioning / heating, etc – without questioning the sincerity of scientists who did the studies and work that produced those benefits.

Would any of us prefer to revert to per-scientific times and conditions? For instance, if you contract malaria, ancient tales say that diseases are punishments or tests, that prayer is the answer, and that 'God' will heal you (if he feels like it). Science and modern medicine say that malaria is caused by parasites (including Plasmodium falciparum) and that it can be treated with antibiotics (including chloroquine. Atovaquone-proguanil, artemether-lumefantrine, floquine, quinine, quinidine, doxycycline, and/ or clindamycin). Take your choice.

Are modern medicine, communication, transportation, etc part of the 'great conspiracy against religion'?

Are the thousands of scientists who are Christians part of the 'great conspiracy?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]



I think you have some things conflicted here! I cannot speak for creationists, and I cannot speak for all Christians, I can only speak for myself.

First, there is a tremendous difference between, things that have been demonstrated to be true, such as, cell phones, GPS, computers, medicines, planes, cars or boats, etc., and those things that have NOT been demonstrated to be true as of yet, such as evolution, how old the Earth may be, how the universe came into being, etc.

So then, as far as the former, I believe in these things because I have seen, witnessed, and even utilized, each one, and know beyond doubt that they do in fact work, in most cases. However, as far as the latter, these things have not in any way been demonstrated to be true, and with this being the case, I am not on either side of the fence as of yet.

Again, I can only speak for myself, but as you can see, I am a firm believer in the things that have been demonstrated, and I will wait to see, how those things that have not been demonstrated as of yet, play out, if they ever do!

On top of all of this, as far as, cell phones, GPS, computers, medicines, planes, cars or boats, etc., I do not have to be a scientist, or go into a laboratory, to test these things, rather, I can, and have tested these things myself. However, as far as, evolution, how old the Earth may be, how the universe came into being, etc., I would at this point in time, be dependent on the scientist, no matter if they were creationists, or big bangers.

You, and "Kenisaw" act as if, since science gave us, cell phones, GPS, computers, medicines, planes, cars or boats, etc., then we should all simply believe what the scientists have to say, without question? I believe I will pass on that!

So then, since I am definitely not the type of person to take another's word for it, I will wait until I see the evidence that is overwhelming either way. I am a Christian, but I am not the type of person who will deny overwhelming evidence. Thus far, as far as, evolution, how old the Earth may be, how the universe came into being, etc., I have not seen the overwhelming evidence either way.

So then, I do not insist on the age of the Earth, that evolution is true, or untrue, or that God had to create the universe. At this point I believe a certain way concerning these things, but I will not insist on these things, until I can make the argument, with overwhelming evidence! But lets continue to think about these things.

I will agree, that there are many Christians who will insist on certain things, in the face of the evidence against it. I will also agree that there are more than likely many Christians who believe that there is some sort of conspiracy, on the part of science. So thus far, I think these are things we can agree upon. I will also throw in that, I am convinced that there are many scientists that claim to be creationists, that are not really involved in true science, but are rather attempting to promote their agenda.

With this being the case, I have never been a fan, and I really do not trust the science of one who claims to be a creationists. However, with that being said, this street runs both ways. There are also scientists, who claim to be evolutionists, and I am not very fond of these scientists either!

You see, as far as science goes, evolution, has not been demonstrated to be true, and it has not been demonstrated to be false. With this being the case, I find it extremely difficult to trust the research of any scientist who has made up their mind concerning these things, when it has not been proven one way or the other.

The point is, I absolutely agree that there are creation scientists, who more than likely attempt to slant the evidence toward their particular agenda. Is it possible, that there may be those on the other side of the fence, who will, and do the same thing? Or, is it only the scientists with whom you are opposed that would do this sort of thing, and those with whom you are in agreement, are top notch, honest, and would never dream of slanting the evidence toward their agenda.

I understand that you are a scientist, but for me, and all those who are not, we will have to be dependent on the words of the scientists, and I will not be ready to do such a thing, until I see the overwhelming evidence either way.

So then, you may be right, there certainly may be those scientists who are creationists, who attempt to slant the evidence. There may be Christians who believe there is a certain conspiracy concerning science. But please do not attempt to tell us, that those on the other side, are immune to this sort of thing. Remember, the street runs both ways!

So then, there are Christians, who take the word of the scientists who are creationists, and then there are those who are opposed to creation, and they take the word of the evolution scientists. As for me, until it is demonstrated one way or the other, I will continue to proclaim the truth that, it has not been proven either way, and I will wait.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to Realworldjack]

Jack, do we agree that bacteria can become antibiotic resistant? If there is any doubt:

Today, almost all important bacterial infections in the United States and throughout the world are becoming resistant to antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance has been called one of the world's most pressing public health problems.
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYo ... efault.htm

The field of Microbiology, which studies such things, understands that when bacteria are first exposed to an antibiotic MOST of them are killed. Occasionally some survive and reproduce. Their offspring are less affected (or not adversely affected) by the antibiotic. They have changed genetically.

Evolution is defined by geneticists (not theologians) as: Genetic change through generations. There is no doubt that it occurs each time strains of bacteria become antibiotic resistant. Thus, evolution DOES occur – and is repeatedly demonstrated by multiple disconnected sources worldwide – and is recognized as causing a major public health problem.

When I point this out to Apologists in these debates their responses are typically:

1) Ignore the information provided by multiple disconnected sources (which seems to fit perfectly the definition of willful ignorance) and fail to respond – disappear from the discussion or go along as though nothing had been presented.

2) Agree that SOME evolution (genetic change through generations) CAN occur 'but only so much – or not a lot (or whatever). However, when asked what LIMITS how much change can occur – what mechanism is involved – they have NO answer.

Thus, geneticists (people who study such things) demonstrate that evolution DOES occur while many Apologists CLAIM that it does not – because evolution contradicts 'holy' book tales by ancient storytellers. Which seems more rational to accept?


Regarding age of the Earth: The (only?) reason that becomes a matter of debate here, outside academic / professional circles is that scientific findings conflict with ancient tales and beliefs. Thousands of studies using a wide range of techniques have been used to estimate the age of the Earth. Opposing this are Theists who study ancient writings refuse to accept scientific findings (and/or claim to know that the scientific studies are wrong or in doubt) because ancient writers knew best . . .

The best means of learning about the Earth is not likely to be studying ancient texts.


Regarding theistic position of scientists: If a person injects their religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs) into their research and studies, they are NOT conducting science – but are conducting theology.

If a person reaches a conclusion BEFORE examining the evidence, they are NOT using rational decision-making – but are simply looking for evidence to support their conclusion – confirmation bias.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Are modern medicine, communication, transportation, etc part of the 'great conspiracy against religion'?

It depends on what you mean by religion.
There surely are some sects which think of scientific exploration and advancement as threatening their beliefs, but I think GOD exists and that science doesn't threaten that.
If I believed that it was important to believe that GOD created the earth in six days and all that other stuff, then I would suppose that the theory of evolution would be seen by me to be some kind of conspiracy against my beliefs and if I believed my beliefs were what GOD intended me to believe, then I could equate this with being a conspiracy against GOD.

As it stands, I see the theory of evolution gives me a greater feeling of awe than the six day account, when I see it as a process of conscious intelligent creation (GOD) rather than a supernatural event but I wouldn't regard any negative response to that as being somehow necessarily 'conspiracy'. If I did I would have to wonder at the motives of those doing so, although I do admit that the fervency of some to want to convert me to their way of thinking re this, does produce a certain suspicion that they might actually KNOW that GOD does indeed exist, but want ME to believe IT doesn't, for whatever diabolical reasons they would have for doing so.



But *shrugs* - while this might be the case, I have no evidence for it being the case, so - while it might indeed be possible - I lay it aside anyway. There seems little need to think there might be that kind of conspiracy going on in which I have to believe in order to think as I do.

Are the thousands of scientists who are Christians part of the 'great conspiracy?

Well if scientist(s) self identifying as Christian(s) are in the process of trying to find a cure for cancer and actually do, are they conspiring against some unknown order which would threaten belief that only GOD has the right to cure cancer if indeed GOD so deems it necessary in a case by case manner?

This springs to mind:

Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. John 14:12

I think it as factual that there are all sorts of Christians and most of them are not conspiracy nuts.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 3 by Zzyzx]

I'm glad you put a qualifier in, saying "many apologists." True, there are many websites by creation-science people that down evolution. However, there are many other theists, such as myself, who do hold with evolution. In fact, I don't think evolution would be possible without God. So really, only in conservative quarters do theists pit evolution against God.

[Willum]

Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing to show religion is manufactured and fossils are real?

Remember the St John hoax - the one that was said Saint John's bones were in two different churches?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all, but that the two skeletons were from when St John was an old man, and the other was from when he was a young man.

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the miracles.
Any data they give you on miracles, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed rainbows over Arks and dinosaurs - which could have been edited!

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm glad you put a qualifier in, saying "many apologists." True, there are many websites by creation-science people that down evolution. However, there are many other theists, such as myself, who do hold with evolution. In fact, I don't think evolution would be possible without God. So really, only in conservative quarters do theists pit evolution against God.

HH, I fully recognize / acknowledge that there are SOME Theists who accept advancements in human knowledge (even if they may conflict with ancient writings, beliefs, opinions). However, those Thinking Theists seem to be a tiny minority among Believers who post in these threads and who are my fellow residents in the Bible Belt.

I welcome and encourage enlightened Theists who reflect 21st Century human knowledge of the environment. Communication with such people is a pleasure (as compared to being talked at by their less informed bretheren).

[Realworldjack]

.
[Replying to Realworldjack]

Jack, do we agree that bacteria can become antibiotic resistant? If there is any doubt:

Today, almost all important bacterial infections in the United States and throughout the world are becoming resistant to antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance has been called one of the world's most pressing public health problems.
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYo ... efault.htm

The field of Microbiology, which studies such things, understands that when bacteria are first exposed to an antibiotic MOST of them are killed. Occasionally some survive and reproduce. Their offspring are less affected (or not adversely affected) by the antibiotic. They have changed genetically.

Evolution is defined by geneticists (not theologians) as: Genetic change through generations. There is no doubt that it occurs each time strains of bacteria become antibiotic resistant. Thus, evolution DOES occur – and is repeatedly demonstrated by multiple disconnected sources worldwide – and is recognized as causing a major public health problem.

When I point this out to Apologists in these debates their responses are typically:

1) Ignore the information provided by multiple disconnected sources (which seems to fit perfectly the definition of willful ignorance) and fail to respond – disappear from the discussion or go along as though nothing had been presented.

2) Agree that SOME evolution (genetic change through generations) CAN occur 'but only so much – or not a lot (or whatever). However, when asked what LIMITS how much change can occur – what mechanism is involved – they have NO answer.

Thus, geneticists (people who study such things) demonstrate that evolution DOES occur while many Apologists CLAIM that it does not – because evolution contradicts 'holy' book tales by ancient storytellers. Which seems more rational to accept?


Regarding age of the Earth: The (only?) reason that becomes a matter of debate here, outside academic / professional circles is that scientific findings conflict with ancient tales and beliefs. Thousands of studies using a wide range of techniques have been used to estimate the age of the Earth. Opposing this are Theists who study ancient writings refuse to accept scientific findings (and/or claim to know that the scientific studies are wrong or in doubt) because ancient writers knew best . . .

The best means of learning about the Earth is not likely to be studying ancient texts.


Regarding theistic position of scientists: If a person injects their religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs) into their research and studies, they are NOT conducting science – but are conducting theology.

If a person reaches a conclusion BEFORE examining the evidence, they are NOT using rational decision-making – but are simply looking for evidence to support their conclusion – confirmation bias.

I am not a scientist, but I am fully aware, "bacteria can become antibiotic resistant." But I have a simple question here. Do these bacteria continue to remain to be bacteria? Do they transform into another species?

What you seem to be describing, is what I was taught a long time ago in school, as being adaptation. You can call it evolution if you wish, and I will not complain, but how does, "bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant", demonstrate, or prove, that one species has in fact, transformed into another completely different species? As a scientist, maybe you can explain this to me.

While you are at it, maybe you can explain this to me as well. You say, some Apologist,

Agree that SOME evolution (genetic change through generations) CAN occur 'but only so much – or not a lot (or whatever). However, when asked what LIMITS how much change can occur – what mechanism is involved – they have NO answer.

Can you explain what mechanism is involved that would allow these changes to go as far as allowing one species to evolve into a complete and different species? Has the transformation one species, into a completely different species, ever been observed? Has it ever been proven to have occurred? Or, is this simply an assumption based on, "genetic change through generations?"

You may be correct to say that these "Apologists" you speak of, simply assume that genetic change, can only go so far. But are you simply assuming that it can, and does, or is there proof that it does?

It seems sort of strange to me, that whenever you use the word "evolution", you go on to qualify it by saying, (genetic change through generations)? If this was all that was involved in evolution, then we would not be having a debate. But this is not all that is involved, which seems to be the reason you are careful to qualify, in order to ensure that you are not necessarily referring too, "one species transforming into a completely different species."

You see, if you would like to know why there may be some Christians who believe that there may be some sort of conspiracy, this may be one of the reasons, because this certainly seems to be some sort of tactic. In other words, we are not debating, and in fact we agree that there is "genetic change through generations." You refer to this as evolution, and as I said, "I will not complain", but the question we are really debating is, "one species transforming into a completely different species."

I am not saying that it does not, or cannot happen, and I certainly am not saying that it can, or does happen. My position is, it may, or may not happen, but either way, "one species transforming into a completely different species" has not been, demonstrated, proven, observed, and as far as I know, cannot be tested. If this is correct, then it is simply an assumption, to say that it does, or does not.

In short, evolution, (genetic change through generations) has been demonstrated, proven, and observed. However, evolution, (one species transforming into a completely different species) has not! Correct me if I am wrong?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 8 by Realworldjack]


Hi Jack,

I can't say enough about how pleasant it is to communicate with a Theist that THINKS and presents reasoned positions – even though I sometimes lose track of our slow-motion debates or fail to complete some of my long-winded replies . . . BTW, I have purchased “The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert� and “The Rise of the Christian Right in America" (from another of our discussions) – a lot of reading.

I am not a scientist, but I am fully aware, "bacteria can become antibiotic resistant." But I have a simple question here. Do these bacteria continue to remain to be bacteria? Do they transform into another species?

'Species' is a HUMAN-made category or pigeonhole – NOT a boundary set by nature. Taxonomy (the science of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups) defines kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. That is a HUMAN-made category system applied onto nature.

It is much like national and regional boundaries set by humans – nation, state, county, city, etc. Those are just lines on maps.

What you seem to be describing, is what I was taught a long time ago in school, as being adaptation. You can call it evolution if you wish, and I will not complain,

Likewise, you can call it adaptation and I won't object. Both ways recognize that changes occur and are passed on to future generations (genetically).

but how does, "bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant", demonstrate, or prove, that one species has in fact, transformed into another completely different species? As a scientist, maybe you can explain this to me.

When a person steps across a county line, no great change has occurred. They are just in a slightly different place. If they move far enough they may become residents of a different state or nation (a greater degree of change).

Another way to think about it is the evolution (change) within Christianity. Roman Catholicism split into Eastern and Western branches, then Protestantism split from the RCC, then it split into numerous factions. Now, a couple thousand years from the beginning, there are groups that differ radically from one another – from RCC to Lutheran to LDS to JW to Amish.

A number of small changes (and some major ones) along the way yielded GREAT changes over time – until the resulting groups have little in common.

Agree that SOME evolution (genetic change through generations) CAN occur 'but only so much – or not a lot (or whatever). However, when asked what LIMITS how much change can occur – what mechanism is involved – they have NO answer.

Can you explain what mechanism is involved that would allow these changes to go as far as allowing one species to evolve into a complete and different species?

Time – and a series of small changes.

If a group of plants are separated by a barrier of some sort, those on each side of the barrier continue to undergo small changes – separately and not necessarily in the same directions. Given a few million years those groups can be expected to be very different (particularly if environmental conditions are different for them).

Many Theists deny the possibility that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old – but the number of 'Young Earth' believers is dwindling as information is more widespread.

The hills may appear 'everlasting' in human lifetimes – but NOT in Earth time.



More to follow when I return from having breakfast with friends . . .

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by Realworldjack]



[center]
I can't speak for the creationists, but I will anyway[/center]

I think you have some things conflicted here! I cannot speak for creationists, and I cannot speak for all Christians, I can only speak for myself.

I think that the OP concerns itself with the creationists, though.
I would LOVE to hear from some of them.


[center]
If you are promoting creationist scripts, you ARE speaking for the creationists.[/center]

First, there is a tremendous difference between, things that have been demonstrated to be true, such as, cell phones, GPS, computers, medicines, planes, cars or boats, etc., and those things that have NOT been demonstrated to be true as of yet, such as evolution, how old the Earth may be, how the universe came into being, etc.

You might be interested in some science news.
Most biologists in the world take the theory of evolution as as true as can be.

You seem completely unaware.

So then, as far as the former, I believe in these things because I have seen, witnessed, and even utilized, each one, and know beyond doubt that they do in fact work, in most cases.

You might be interested in how scientists discover, invent and then test theories. You don't display much knowledge about that.

However, as far as the latter, these things have not in any way been demonstrated to be true, and with this being the case, I am not on either side of the fence as of yet.

I know that the creationist propaganda so far is WINNING. Most people in the USA, for example, do not AGREE with the theory of evolution. And you are a perfect example of that winning strategy.

Bravo for the creationist lobby !!
They got their religious beliefs into your head today.

Too many people are not convinced by the actual science. And that MAY BE due to the overwhelming majority of people NOT BEING INTERESTED in the actual scientific facts.

Again, I can only speak for myself, but as you can see, I am a firm believer in the things that have been demonstrated, and I will wait to see, how those things that have not been demonstrated as of yet, play out, if they ever do!

[center]
Yeah, scientific knowledge... when is THAT ever going to happen?[/center]



From my perspective, your scientific skepticism is almost non-existent.
Maybe that's why the creationist propaganda is working on you.


Try a little more skepticism.. that's a part of the scientific method, you know.