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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 8 by Realworldjack]



[center]Should we trust the creationists who have the agenda of discrediting the theory of evolution to accurately tell us what the theory of evolution is?[/center]

"I am not a scientist"

Good.

That's honesty.
That's very clear.
That's precise.
That's really a great place to start your investigation.

I am not a scientist either.
I AM however, a student of critical thinking and/or skepticism.

So who do you think I should rely on in order to get any scientific FACT?
I say the actual SCIENTISTS.

Who should YOU rely on?

I have to rely on actual, credited, reliable, REPUTABLE scientists whose scientific theories are peer reviewed and at best tested and verified by other actual, credited, reliable, REPUTABLE scientists. I don't want to rely on anyone ELSE as a source for my scientific education. If I want to be preached to, I might seek out a creationist.

Any creationist can take a stab at biology.. and that's perfectly fine. You can do it too.. set up a lab, go out in the field and study nature. Nothing and nobody is going to stop you.

HOWEVER:

Once you develop your new fangled theory, if you want to call it SCIENTIFIC, you must then... have it tested by all the OTHER scientists out there. If they don't accept it.. too bad for you and your wonderful theory. SOMEONE OUT THERE who IS a reputable scientist found a flaw with your theory or your methodology.

So, apparently, when it comes to the theory of evolution, you would much rather trust the CREATIONISTS who have quite the religious agenda... instead of the ACTUAL, accredited, reliable, REPUTABLE scientists who are the actual EXPERTS doing the actual WORK and all of those actual DISCOVERIES and observations.

Your lack of skepticism is as stunning as it is common.
And BOTH of these conditions are extremely SAD.

I urge you to consider studying critical thinking or "skepticism".

If you want to THINK CRITICALLY about science, of course, by all means, you should do that.

BUT I THINK YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW TO DO THAT. I promote learning about critical thinking. I usually call it "skepticism" because it's shorter to type.. but it's the same thing.

You are CRITICIZING certain aspects of science, without having the background knowledge to criticize it like a real scientist who actually works in the related field.

As you so rightly say, you are NOT a scientist, that much is clear. But you DO want to criticize it, that's also very very clear.

Get some critical thinking skills. Learn about the actual science, and NOT the creationist propaganda about it.

Acquire some skepticism, and learn HOW to think critically.

Because falling for propaganda is being GULLIBLE.

( by the way, I am always happy to help anyone getting started with how to think critically )

[Zzyzx]

.
Continued from post #9:

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?"

A couple of things Jack.

1) 'Species' is a human concept – imposed on nature – much like national, state, or county lines are human constructs. Nature is not bound to conform to human cubbyholes or classification systems.

2) We can observe that changes, sometimes large changes, have occurred without actually observing the change occur. For example (using some familiar terms) Christianity has evidently changed (evolved) greatly since its earliest days – from wandering preachers on foot or riding donkeys to address relatively small audiences – to elaborate cathedrals, megachurches, and televangelists addressing tens of thousands or millions. From RCC doctrine to JW, LDS, SDA, Amish, Baptist, Lutheran, and the thousands of sub-sects within 'Christianity' today.

Did anyone alive now observe those changes occurring?

You may be correct to say that these "Apologists" you speak of, simply assume that genetic change, can only go so far.

Actually, their position is that genetic change CANNOT 'go that far'. I ask WHY? What are the limiting factors or mechanisms?

But are you simply assuming that it can, and does, or is there proof that it does?

My position is that the amount of change possible has not been shown to be limited by any factor or mechanism.

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)?

I add 'genetic change through generations' to provide the definition used for evolution (and to separate 'evolution' from 'origin of life' or 'slime to man' straw-men raised by evolution deniers.

Adding "genetic change through generations' cuts down the wiggle room for those who attempt to deny that genetic change occurs or attempt to re-define the term to suit their agenda.

If this was all that was involved in evolution, then we would not be having a debate.

If we were all aware of what biologists / geneticists mean when they say 'evolution' (genetic change through generations), we would all understand that it DOES occur every time a microbe develops antibiotic resistance that is passed to its offspring.

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."

RCC can't possibly produce JW and LDS as an offspring. Right?

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.

The 'tactic', Jack, is to study what actually occurs in nature and to report it as well as possible and have it checked by other studies worldwide by disconnected investigators.

Quite a conspiracy – that includes thousands of scientists / biologists / geneticists who ARE Christians. What are those Christian scientists thinking when they say that evolution does occur?

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."

OH? Is that the question being debated when the OP questions for debate are:

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?

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.

My position is that we KNOW genetic change occurs (antibiotic resistance for example). I do not pretend to know how much can occur and am not aware of any limiting mechanism for the amount of change.

Those who insist that major change does NOT occur are welcome to present their evidence and to identify the mechanism that limits the amount of change.

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?

Agreed. That change has not been observed.

The change from RCC to JW and LDS (etc) has not been observed by any of us – yet we acknowledge that changes have occurred that produced significant differences. We have evidence that the change occurred. Agreed?

Would it be rational to argue 'That much change could not have occurred because I don't think it could and because you have not observed it occurring or proved it actually occurred'?

There ARE similarities within the major group 'Christianity' just as there are similarities within the group 'mammals' (All mammals are warm blooded, Most young are born alive, They have hair or fur on their bodies, Every mammal is a vertebrate, All mammals have lungs to breathe air, Mammals feed milk to their babies).

There are also differences – evidently produced by changes over time (in Christianity and in Mammals).

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Yes, unfortunately, I also find that to be true here and elsewhere. I think the basic problem is the model of God that people have. Many hold with the classical or traditional model, by which God does not change in any way whatsoever. Hence, they assume the universe does not change either. Hence, no evolution. I'm a neo-classical theist, however, so I believe change and continual creativity are basic dimensions of God.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 13 by hoghead1]

HH, yours is a reasonable theistic position -- that does not conflict with, or dispute, what is known of the world we inhabit (but maybe adds a few things). Not much to dispute.

If only your position wasn't held by (seemingly) only a tiny fraction of those who call themselves Christians.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 14 by Zzyzx]

Well, I'm not so sure we are in such a "tiny minority." I'm PCUSA. We are very liberal. Most I know accept evolution and modern science. The liberal side of Christianity has a very wide following. However, if you are living in a conservative area, that may not always be obvious.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 11 by Blastcat]

You are CRITICIZING certain aspects of science, without having the background knowledge to criticize it like a real scientist who actually works in the related field.

As you so rightly say, you are NOT a scientist, that much is clear. But you DO want to criticize it, that's also very very clear.

Could you explain to me, exactly what I criticized, as far as science goes? I do not recall doing so!?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 11 by Blastcat]

You are CRITICIZING certain aspects of science, without having the background knowledge to criticize it like a real scientist who actually works in the related field.

As you so rightly say, you are NOT a scientist, that much is clear. But you DO want to criticize it, that's also very very clear.

Could you explain to me, exactly what I criticized, as far as science goes? I do not recall doing so!?

Oh sorry. I thought you were criticizing the theory of evolution.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 17 by Blastcat]

Nope! Just making the observation that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", has never been, observed, demonstrated, or proven, to have actually occurred!

[Zzyzx]

.

Nope! Just making the observation that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", has never been, observed, demonstrated, or proven, to have actually occurred!

Wait a minute Jack . . . is this a claim to KNOW that such observation has NEVER happened?

If so, kindly explain how one knows about all possible observations, everywhere, at all times.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 18 by Realworldjack]



[center]

In the real world, Jack, the theory of evolution is just about as proven as we can GET.
If you don't think that it has been demonstrated over and over and over again for over 150 years now, you are sadly mistaken in your criticism of it.[/center]

Nope! Just making the observation that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", has never been, observed, demonstrated, or proven, to have actually occurred!

That's criticizing the theory of evolution.
You are saying that it hasn't been demonstrated.


You are saying that all of the thousands of scientists who take the theory as one of the best scientific theory in the history of mankind are wrong.

All of the research, all of the scientific papers, all of the study, all the observations, all over the world, for more than a hundred years, all wrong.

It's all perhaps, "fake news".

That's an incredible amount of wrongness.
How do you account for that?