Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

For real.

There is a grain of truth to what P is saying- there are comparable extremists on both sides: YECS who say you cant be a christian and believe in evolution, and Dawkins who says you cant be a christian and believe in evolution ( kinda like both the Klan and the Panthers were opposed to racial integration in the polarized sixties).

But to imply that YEC's are a tiny minority of shrinking violets who only get attention because "strident atheists" pick on them is several kinds of absurd.

The main enemy of YEC's are their own co- religents who dont happen to share their literal interpretation of the Bible.
They dont get picked on by athiests.

Athiest "pick on" all of the reliogous. Not just the creationists.

YEC's have been on the warpath for decades creating a whole industry out of Darwin-denial, invading the classroom, and building Biblical dinosaur parks. And though they maybe a "minority" they are hardly a "small" one- they number in the millions. In contrast its the atheist who have stayed in the woodwork. And only in the last couple years have a handful gone "strident" and started to throw down the gauntlet like creationists have done for a long time now.

Strident atheists number about four people ( bill maher, hawkins, dawkins, Hitchens) and their "movement" started only a couple of years ago.

Not true at all. It may be that you don't follow the issue but Creationists and ID fans are in the news almost every single month with another effort to change science definitions or change education standards at the school board or state legislative level.

It's a highly politicized movement. They are pushing the issue because they've lost. Not the other way around.



Some of their claims about specific systems can be dismissed but their belief in design can't be falsified. It was admitted in the Dover case that they do not have a model or scientific theory and their virtual founder Philip Johnson admitted the same in an interview. And the other wing of ID consists of information arguments. That new information can't arise without design. That's more philosophy than science so I don't know how you'd test it.



There are two main branches of ID thought. The irreducible complexity arguments and the information arguments. Neither have gone anywhere. But ID arguments are used by old fashioned creationists as well. SO ID means whatever someone wants it to mean.

Some, like Michael Behe, will say that common descent happened but that god(s) had to tweak the machinery at key points and that they might have left fingerprints. Others will use ID in place of Creationism and continue to assert that life rapidly appeared in various forms and does not share common descent. There is a spectrum of what a ID types are willing to accept.

Last edited by simon_says on 10 Jun 2011, 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

@ Aspirant

The vast majority of scholars, even trinitarian ones, take this to be a royal plural. Just like in Isiah 6:8 “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?”. The description switches from singular to plural. The same occurs in Genesis 3:22 and 11:7. Most believers take it to be God talking to the angels, though it must be pointed out; angels are not creators. Once again, I wish it really was a plural statement, then it would be evidence for the doctrine of the trinity.

If you intend to claim that 1:26 claims polytheism when it says 'made in our image' then this view cannot be reconciled with 1:27 where it states 'made in HIS own image, in the image of God HE created them'. It just cannot work without being selectively interpreted.

Last edited by 91 on 10 Jun 2011, 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hawkins? I don't know that one. Surely you don't mean Stephen Hawking? I disagree with his views on God, but he's anything but strident! He's too busy being brilliant to waste time on atheist/creationist arguments. It wasn't even until last month he even claimed that "heaven is a myth," and he has maintained varying views of God's existence or non-existence throughout his life. One minuscule public statement does not equal going on the warpath the way anti-theists such as dawkins and hitchens have.

Is that who you meant, or is there a hawkins out there I probably should have heard of?

That is precisely what I said. You are making a straw man of my statement. I claimed that the principles like irreducible complexity cannot be falsified. Statements like 'this part of this animal is irreducibly complex' can and as far as I am aware, has been, in both court and peer-reviewed journals. You have misrepresented or misunderstood my statement.

naturalplastic -

We are taking "strident" at different levels here. My brother - if you took away his paranoia about theism destroying science - which is at least as strong as my anti-Chomsky feeling, but with less basis, because in fact his field has NOT been taken over by dinosaur eating theists - would tell you that theism is archaic and unreasonable and that anybody believing in a divine entity is an idiot. That happens to include me and our mother, whose favorite he was; but he generously includes my sister, who is not actually a theist.

But, having bought into the view that theism destroys science [which I will not critique again here] he is as strident as any here. No, he is not writing books and appearing on talk shows or engaging in phony debates in which both sides claim victory and both sides go away strengthened in unreasoning paranoia. But he is by word and example spreading the call to Crusade / Jihad - SCIENCE must crush the Paynim.

His type are less visible - because this culture takes it for granted ["Of course we know there are no witchers", said as smugly as Pastor Johnny said "Of course Islam is a false religion."]. The media fingers point at the Creation Science people - who except for the artificial controversy are pretty much a sideline.

I have seen ONE - 1, count him, ONE - out of all those talking on either side who has even glanced at the other sides claims to examine them instead of hyuck hyuck.

Creationists actively go out to undermine science education. It is not a matter of "Just ignore them and they'll go away." If you ignore them, they will spread their nonsense unopposed.

Lord, mon, and I am the one pessimistic about people.

What can I say?

If I point out that the rabblerousers on the other side yell about the forces of evil actively seeking to root out all vestiges of Christianity, I'm just bizarre.

I HAVE listened to and seen both sides - both sides of the serious and both sides of the unconcerned, both sides of the activists and both sides of the reasonable [and yes, that is slanted language, it cuts both ways].

Most people I have observed in this country and in Canada and the UK [not up to speed on the rsest of the world]. do not that much care what is taught in the schools as long as their young come out able to read the paper and balance their checkbook and find a job with a living wage. Some don't even care about that; some would like their young to be assisted toward learning to THINK.

Most people I have observed do not care about this religion or that or atheism so long as they can in peace go to church or pray or, on the other hand, are not forced to go to church or pray.

Believe me, this snake [for now it is not an elephant] looks the same coming or going, and botrh ends bite.

Exactly. It is my opinion that most of those who lobby against the teaching of evolution do so from ignorance and fear. Their arguments show they are very much unaware of how truly overwhelmingly one-sided the evidence is from so many different branches of science that all clearly show evolution happens regardless of how some people choose to interpret an ancient spiritual text. Their religious beliefs convince them that evolution has to be a lie, so obviously it is regardless of the evidence. I for one cannot believe in a God that would plant so much evidence that evolution happens if it really didn't happen after all. That would be a trickster God, and who could trust anything such a God says?

What I have seen of most creationist arguments is abysmal ignorance of the evidence, distortion of the facts, and misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. It's even funnier that some things that creationists demand as "proof" of evolution (such as a cat giving birth to a dog) would, if found, actually DISprove at least our current understanding of it, although there is so much evidence of so many different types that what would happen would probably be an adjusted explanation of evolution, not a rejection of it.

It also ticks me off that the Young Earth Creationists are lobbying the school boards and politicians of this country by claiming the moral high ground when they are the ones spreading LIES about this subject. Seriously folks, check out the Talk Origins archive, the NCSE web site, the one from University California Berkeley explaining evolution to the public, or any of the other fine resources out there to get the facts about this subject. The Creationist web sites such as Answers in Genesis are full of lies, misquotes, and distortions. You don't have to take my word for it. I encourage you to find out for yourself.

Father Abraham himself avows this plurality: "When elohim [gods] caused [plural: hith-u] me to wander from my father's house" (Gen. xx, 13).

Jacob built an altar at Luz, "and called the place El- bethel"; because there ha-elohim were revealed [plural: nigl-u] unto him" (Gen. x-xxv, 7)

And David makes the selfsame open avowal of the plural gods of Israel: "Israel, whom gods [elohim] went [plural: balk-u] to redeem ... from the nations and their gods [elohim]" (2 Sam. vii, 23).

Moses uses the plural adjective with the plural noun elohim: "hath heard the voice of the living gods [elohim hayyim]" (Deut. v, 26; Heb. text, v, 23).

And twice David threatens Goliath for defying "the armies of the living gods" (elohim hayyim; I Sam. xvii, 26, 36).




royal plural?

interesting stuff.....

I am highly motivated by this subject because I love truth and hate lies.

The most amazing thing to me is how many people can be so misinformed about something that has so much evidence that all clearly points to the same reality.

Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine talking to someone who seems sane until the idea of a spherical earth comes up. All of a sudden that person starts ranting about how it's "just a theory" and how equal time should be given to the flat-earth idea in public schools, and to not do so is "censorship." The social (not scientific) debate about evolution really is that stupid. I am not exaggerating in the least.

It isn't just defending truth and attacking lies that motivates me on this subject though; I care about my country, humanity, and the planet. If children don't learn how to reason critically from evidence, if their science education is sabotaged by religious nut jobs trying to send us back to the Dark Ages, then obviously our country will be less competitive in the global market. Also, with the tremendous problems of terrorism, pollution, hunger, and disease we need more scientists, not less, not just for America but for the future of humanity and our planet.

Sorry. I meant hawkings. And yes he isnt very strident. He just makes statements like " god wasnt needed to create the universe" and "asking what happened before the big bang is like asking 'what is north of the north pole'". He isnt strident, but folks respond to him quite stridently. Probably he shouldnt be lumped in with other three.

Hawkings is not one of the Four Horsemen. However he is far too intelligent to believe in the God worshiped by the dull masses of humanity.

ruveyn

To most of us the mathematical analysis and the data and conclusions involved in Hawking's statements are beyond our abilities to examine precisely and make conclusive judgments about. What I find ironically amusing is that a few people at this site set themselves up as equal to Hawking in making basic judgments about his material. Admittedly, for me, I must take much of what Hawking says into consideration from the point of view of respecting the reputation he has in the entire scientific community.For someone at this site to demand equal respect strikes me as a demonstration of supreme foolishness and diminishes their value totally.

F*ck. Yes. See what motivated me to start this post is the baptists have set up shop in my town and now there is anti-science paraphernalia everywhere. They target schools with seminars given by as*holes with fake or irrelevant PhDs and teach the kids to accept pseudo-science as fact. Hell, one of their posters was about how Noah's ark was a true account.

To the people who think us militant atheists are just mean, whatever. If you don't fight against and publicly ridicule those who try to subvert education and brainwash children then you are partially responsible for every child who's brain turns to mush.

Oh and as for the "ignore them and they will go away" bullocks, yea, just like cancer.

I find militant atheists such as Dawkins as annoying and unreasonable as militant Christians who stand on street corners telling passers-by they are going to hell.