Besides, it's not like "creationism" is one story either. There are plenty of creation myths from plenty of religions. Even within the Christian creationism that we're typically talking about here, there are variations like Old Earth vs. Young Earth, and middle-of-the-road paths like divinely-assisted evolution.
It's even more complicated than that when you consider that even within the book of Genesis there are something like three different creations.
The above remark deserves individual attention. It gets right to the heart of what you don't understand about how science works.
Science does not demand that the very thing that you're trying to prove be observable. Certainly, being able to directly observe, and then repeatedly demonstrate, what you wish to prove is the best form of evidence you can hope for, but it's not at all the only acceptable form of evidence.
To pretend that only direct observation of a theorized phenomena is acceptable as evidence would be equivalent to saying that the only time a murderer can and should be convicted is when there's at least one eyewitness to the crime, if not many more than one, since one person's claims can easily be disputed.
That's right! We've known or suspected the existance of atoms and their nature for thousands of years but it wasn't until about 20 years ago that they were photographed.
A lot of times in science you can see the effect of something and learn about it without actually seeing it. Still you know it's there.
There are lots of examples in everyday life that things pass right before our eyes ( cosmic rays, different frequencies of light etc. ) that aren't designed to see them. Yet we know they are there despite our inability to directly confirm them from casual observation.
It's the way science works. If your own senses won't do the job you use another tool or approach. Deductive reasoning.
"Creationism" is one of the most blatant examples of such literal Sunday School garbage interpretation. It is unbelievable in these supposedly "enlightened" times, where science and proven knowledge is advancing so rapidly, that such bastions of superstitious drivel still find so much support.
Creationism, as a modern movement, is a response to the incremental (but persistent) persecution of Christians in America over the past quarter-century. Fundamental types feel that they're surrounded, and the only response is to lock arms and dig in. In some ways they're justified in feeling that way, because society has absolutely nothing to offer those who profess Christianity, much less those who actually live by its teachings.
What fascinates me about the whole evolution debate is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator. In fact, evolution BEGS FOR a designer. For people to fail to see this boggles the mind.
Fundamental types feel that they're surrounded, and the only response is to lock arms and dig in.
Actually evolution as an idea has used up it's alloted time on the World's stage. Fanatacism by acedemia---that reacts violently to the notion of even questioning whether evolution is rational---is the sign that acedemia has dug in, and locked arms. Those of you plugged into AOLTIMEWARNER and VIACOM will be the last to realize this.
Quote:
.....is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator.
Perfectly consistent only if you can pick and choose what is truth in the Bible (or the Koran, for that matter).
Creationism, as a modern movement, is a response to the incremental (but persistent) persecution of Christians in America over the past quarter-century. Fundamental types feel that they're surrounded, and the only response is to lock arms and dig in. In some ways they're justified in feeling that way, because society has absolutely nothing to offer those who profess Christianity, much less those who actually live by its teachings.
What fascinates me about the whole evolution debate is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator. In fact, evolution BEGS FOR a designer. For people to fail to see this boggles the mind.
I wasn't aware that Christianity required society have something to offer them in terms of their belief. I would have thought that faith is exactly that which does not require authentication from a secular world.
The whole "digging in " thing is characteristic of all forms of fundamentalism.
By creating a world view which is under constant assault by the forces of "non-belief", fundamentalists strengthen their sense of community, mission and urgency. Fighting for the belief system becomes literally a matter of life and death, since the larger world is always at the ready to snuff out the faithful unless heroic measures (augmented by God) are taken, and taken repeatedly.
That's what makes fundamentalist movements such potent adversaries; they are committed in a way and for reasons most of us would find difficult to match in terms of intensity.
[B]Creationism, as a modern movement, is a response to the incremental (but persistent) persecution of Christians in America over the past quarter-century./b]
Give me a break. Christians are not persecuted in America. Not one damn bit. When they disallow Christians from marrying, then we can talk persecution. When people are routinely fired for being Christian, then we can talk persecution. When the government kicks the doors in of Christian homes and arrests them for, I dunno, praying, then we can talk persecution. When they make Christians sit at certain tables in restaurants or ride at the back of the bus, or disallow them from voting, then we can talk persecution.
What the fundie Christians call "persecution" is multiculturalism -- fundie Christians are such fanatics that they think that allowing Muslims, Jews and others to live as full and equal citizens, without having Christianity shoved on them by the government, is somehow "persecution" of Christians.
Not allowing Christian prayers at the start of a school event or day is NOT persecution.
Not allowing Christian doctrine to be taught in school classes is NOT persecution.
Not allowing public money to go to giant statues or monuments that do little but proclaim the Christian religion is NOT persecution.
Actually evolution as an idea has used up it's alloted time on the World's stage. Fanatacism by acedemia---that reacts violently to the notion of even questioning whether evolution is rational---is the sign that acedemia has dug in, and locked arms. Those of you plugged into AOLTIMEWARNER and VIACOM will be the last to realize this.
Perfectly consistent only if you can pick and choose what is truth in the Bible (or the Koran, for that matter).
Pick and choose.... I guess the earth IS the center of the universe then? DMZ if you're going to take genesis at face value then you need to take the entire bible at face value.
A religion is an organized form of worship and recognition of a divine entity, usually a Creator. What divine entity is common among all pluralists, as you call us?
I go to a Christian church every week, often twice a week. If I recognize any God it is the Trinity. But I will not stand by and let those who do not believe as I usually do be spat upon and trampled down by evil fundamentalists who are trying to use the government to indoctrinate people into fairy tales about six day creations and the superiority of man over women, to name just two bullshit notions common among fundamentalists.
Evolution and Christianity are 100% compatible.
There is no scientific reason to doubt evolution. It has been assaulted by scientists from all sides for over 150 years, and has proven malleable enough to remain the only credible option for the development and speciation of life on this planet.
Evolution does not claim that there is no God. Evolution is silent on that subject.
If the Pope can be a Christian and an evolutionist, clearly those claiming that is impossible are the ones living in a fantasy world.
A religion is an organized form of worship and recognition of a divine entity, usually a Creator. What divine entity is common among all pluralists, as you call us?
don't be simple-minded Kirkland, you've only shifted ultimacy.
Quote:
Evolution and Christianity are 100% compatible.
-only if the system of truth presented in the Bible is self-contradictory.
I dunno---are blacks and aborigines still subhuman?
Hey, don't turn this around onto me. You're the one arguing creationism. You're the one advocating taking one book of the bible at face value. You're the one who needs to clarify why one part of the bible is an allegory while another is not. I don't. I believe in God. I go to Mass. I don't believe in creationism.
So again, is the Earth the center of the known universe? Answer the question. Don't dodge and evade. Don't reply with round answer that lead nowhere. ATQ yes or no. Because you either believe the earth is the center of the known universe as the bible states or you're arguing to a hypocritical end.
Evolution does NOT claim that blacks or aborigines are sub-human. If racist Europeans in the 1800s tried to use evolution to posit such a notion, that doesn't surprise me. But evolutionary theory CHANGES as new evidence is revealed and unearthed.
Evolution as we understand it today is far removed from evolution as it was understood in 1904. But in the last 100 years, no evidence has emerged to credibly challenge the foundational notions of evolution, outside of the masturbatory fantasy of deluded fundamentalist fanatics. In fact, evolution is far more proven today than it ever has been. The evidence for it is mountainous.
But the theory will still change over time. It has to. That's what science does -- it changes to reflect new evidence. If credible evidence is shown that exposes flaws in modern evolutionary thinking, such evidence will be integrated into the body of scientific thought regarding this topic. Just as it always has in the past.
Is religion as flexible?
Or must we rip out our brains and submit to the nonsense worldview of 2000 years ago in order to be good Christians?
Only a fool would look at humanism/pluralism and not see just another religion.
Not "humanism/pluralism". Just pluralism. That is, humanists, christians, jews, wiccan, buddhists, animists, atheists, agnostics, muslims, naturists, hindi, satanists, new agers, goddess worshipers and anything else you can think of or care to subscribe to.
The collapse of this vast and varied world of relationship to the divine into "humanism/pluralism" speaks volumes about the fundamentalist relationship to the rest of the world.
[B]Creationism, as a modern movement, is a response to the incremental (but persistent) persecution of Christians in America over the past quarter-century.
I don't know that you can draw a distinction between creationism as a modern movement and creationism as an historical one. Indeed, when you think about it, when we look at this "debate" historically, creationism is the default position and natural selection/evolution is the insurgent position.
With that said, I disagree with your representation of "modern" creationism as the result of the oppression of Christianity. The issue is simply that a thousands year-old set of myths about the origin of mankind are being called into question, and Christians and Christianity are balking at this. This is not the first time inherited sets of beliefs have been challenged. Copernicus and Galileo come to mind. Hell, Galileo was just un-ex-communicated a few years ago (you will recall he had the whacky notion that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around). This is nothing new, and indeed, the terms of the debate have hardly shifted at all since the Huxley/Wilberforce debates in the c19. The only difference I can think of is that "creationists" (a silly term, I think) are attempting to use science to undermine the theories underpinning evolution, natural selection, planet formation, geology, biology, and a whole host of other disciplines.
The idea that Christians have been "persecuted" in America over the past 25 years is, I think, both hyperbolic (no one is rounding them up and shooting them in soccer fields) and wrong-headed. Christianity, in all of its stripes, is the dominant and most powerful religion in the world. Christians have controlled, from top to bottom, American history and politics throughout this country's history. There are massive networks devoted to fundraising and spreading the word. Just because the evangelical revival has died down (alas, time passes) doesn't mean that Christians are nearing extinction--no matter what they often seem to want to argue.
Quote:
Fundamental types feel that they're surrounded, and the only response is to lock arms and dig in.
Fundamental types are surrounded. In fact, they are always surrounded. This is important to think about, I believe. The notion that you are a "fundamentalist" can only emerge in response to some institutional change (thus, before they were fundamentalists, they were mainstream). "Fundamentalism" as a discrete category of believers is always a response to that change.
Quote:
In some ways they're justified in feeling that way, because society has absolutely nothing to offer those who profess Christianity, much less those who actually live by its teachings.
Well, that's a broad claim. I would argue that fundamentalists believe that the modern world against which fundamentalism is a response has nothing to offer them. This is because fundamentalism, at its heart, seeks to undo the modern world and return to the time when its "fundamental" beliefs were mainstream. For us, this would mean returning to the 15th century (depending upon your stripe of Christianity).
Quote:
What fascinates me about the whole evolution debate is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator. In fact, evolution BEGS FOR a designer. For people to fail to see this boggles the mind.
I would suggest that this is only true for Darwin's articulation of the theories. There's a very real and specific reason for this: Darwin is essentially a Romanticist. That is, he clearly subscribes to a set of philosophies (inherited through a Hellenic revival in the c18 in England and filtered through the dominant poets/philosophers of the early c19) about "nature" as a) somehow an agent capable of action and intent and b) the means of accessing the mind of God. Over and over again in Origin of Species Darwin remarks that nature has the best interests of the species in mind. It is easy to dismiss these references as Darwin simply anthropomorphizing nature for literary purposes, but I don't think that's what he's doing. I think he envisions a consciousness at work behind it all. Modern evolutionary theory does not, to my knowledge, concern itself with such vestigial matters.
Either the National Geogrphic society or the Smithsonian Institution had aborginies shot and stuffed---and yes it's been some time since that happened---but it was once as commonly accepted as the geocentric universe that blacks were subhuman. (per Darwin)
What fascinates me about the whole evolution debate is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator.
Evolution is not consistent with a literal reading of the Bible, however, and for some people, that means it must be wrong because they know that the Bible is utterly and completely correct in every detail.
Such Biblical literalists might play at the game of science, might want to add the imprimatur of science to their credentials, and might try to clumsily to use science to batter their opponents, but in the end, science for such people is only a sideshow. They already know the Truth via Faith.
Quote:
In fact, evolution BEGS FOR a designer. For people to fail to see this boggles the mind.
Evolution could be reconciled with such a concept, but it hardly requires any "Creator" concept.
A big bug-a-boo for creationists, be they Biblical literalists or believers in something like God-assisted evolution, is the issue of complexity. Living things (not to mention physical constants and the like, if you're getting cosmology and biogenesis and evolution all jumbled up, as creationists often do) are so complex, and work together so well in concert with other living things and the world at large, that, this reasoning goes, only a Creator could have designed such "perfection".
But how does proposing the existence of a Creator solve the complexity problem? All it does is move unexplained complexity from a realm where it may be difficult, but it's far from impossible, to perform experiments, gather evidence, look for patterns, etc., to a mysterious box named "God" that you can't measure, can't experiment with, can't hope to explain.
Creationist often act like scientists reject God as an answer to the mysteries of life out of some (often described as evil or even Satanic) hatred of God. But the reason to reject God as an answer is that God simply isn't much of an answer. God explains too much, without being testable or falsifiable in any way.
I can explain away the entire universe as a figment of my own imagination, quite thoroughly. There's not a challenge you could make to such a "theory" as long as I'm willing to ascribe infinite cleverness and inventiveness to my own imagination. Why, my imagination is so powerful that I imagined myself right into existence so that I could imagine my imaginings!
This "theory" is both thoroughly bulletproof, and thoroughly useless at the same time.
Remember Occam's Razor: One phrasing is "Given two explanations of seemingly equal validity, the simplest explanation is most often correct." But another important phrasing is "Entities should not be needlessly multiplied."
One can assume that (1) the physical universe and its observable constituents of energy and matter are in and of themselves capable of achieving the complexity of life...
...or...
One can assume that (2) the physical universe and its observable constituents of energy and matter are not sufficient, and introduce a new entity into the equation which, with no explanation or testing, is simply assumed to be the source of all of the necessary complexity.
Occam's Razor obviously favors the first explanation. Occam's Razor isn't a perfect rule, it's merely a guideline, but it generally serves quite well. For those who wish to deride evolution as "bad science", Occam's Razor certainly puts evolution ahead of creationism.
...actually I'm questioning evolution and it relationship to science.
(Nice try, though)
No you're not. You have yet to present a "Scientifically sound" argument against evolution. Simply saying
Quote:
There IS NO SCIENCE that supports evolution, there is no "science" to reject.
IF the earth was made of pristine elements, IF you assume to understand the true nature of universe you can logically deduce that the universe and the earth are quite ancient. The "science" abruptly ends there.
because the only thing this statement does is debunk ALL science.
In fact, you made this statement already:
Quote:
---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.
Prove it. You present evidence that supports your statement. I've read Darwin's works. I've read modern revisions of how evolution works (Darwin was wrong when he hypothesized survival of the fittest). Your statement shows you have a misunderstanding of the scientific method. What Darwin wrote a hundred years ago is not fact today. The foundation of his hypothesis is that evolution occurs but that's it. Move on past Darwin because the scientific world has.
So, if evolution is at odds with science then what are the steps of the scientific method?
Science is not "we think of it now and it will always apply." Science is we Hypostesize now and revise as our understanding improve. You have presented a hypothesis that evolution isn't science well then prove it. Show us where the scientific method can't be applied to a modern understanding of evolution. Show us evidence that supports your claim.
PS still waiting on whether the earth is the center of the universe.
[edit] Changed sun to earth. It pains me to even think the earth is the center of it all.
Comments
Originally posted by shetline
Besides, it's not like "creationism" is one story either. There are plenty of creation myths from plenty of religions. Even within the Christian creationism that we're typically talking about here, there are variations like Old Earth vs. Young Earth, and middle-of-the-road paths like divinely-assisted evolution.
It's even more complicated than that when you consider that even within the book of Genesis there are something like three different creations.
Originally posted by shetline
The above remark deserves individual attention. It gets right to the heart of what you don't understand about how science works.
Science does not demand that the very thing that you're trying to prove be observable. Certainly, being able to directly observe, and then repeatedly demonstrate, what you wish to prove is the best form of evidence you can hope for, but it's not at all the only acceptable form of evidence.
To pretend that only direct observation of a theorized phenomena is acceptable as evidence would be equivalent to saying that the only time a murderer can and should be convicted is when there's at least one eyewitness to the crime, if not many more than one, since one person's claims can easily be disputed.
That's right! We've known or suspected the existance of atoms and their nature for thousands of years but it wasn't until about 20 years ago that they were photographed.
A lot of times in science you can see the effect of something and learn about it without actually seeing it. Still you know it's there.
There are lots of examples in everyday life that things pass right before our eyes ( cosmic rays, different frequencies of light etc. ) that aren't designed to see them. Yet we know they are there despite our inability to directly confirm them from casual observation.
It's the way science works. If your own senses won't do the job you use another tool or approach. Deductive reasoning.
Originally posted by sammi jo
"Creationism" is one of the most blatant examples of such literal Sunday School garbage interpretation. It is unbelievable in these supposedly "enlightened" times, where science and proven knowledge is advancing so rapidly, that such bastions of superstitious drivel still find so much support.
Creationism, as a modern movement, is a response to the incremental (but persistent) persecution of Christians in America over the past quarter-century. Fundamental types feel that they're surrounded, and the only response is to lock arms and dig in. In some ways they're justified in feeling that way, because society has absolutely nothing to offer those who profess Christianity, much less those who actually live by its teachings.
What fascinates me about the whole evolution debate is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator. In fact, evolution BEGS FOR a designer. For people to fail to see this boggles the mind.
Originally posted by finagain
Fundamental types feel that they're surrounded, and the only response is to lock arms and dig in.
Actually evolution as an idea has used up it's alloted time on the World's stage. Fanatacism by acedemia---that reacts violently to the notion of even questioning whether evolution is rational---is the sign that acedemia has dug in, and locked arms. Those of you plugged into AOLTIMEWARNER and VIACOM will be the last to realize this.
.....is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator.
Perfectly consistent only if you can pick and choose what is truth in the Bible (or the Koran, for that matter).
Originally posted by finagain
Creationism, as a modern movement, is a response to the incremental (but persistent) persecution of Christians in America over the past quarter-century. Fundamental types feel that they're surrounded, and the only response is to lock arms and dig in. In some ways they're justified in feeling that way, because society has absolutely nothing to offer those who profess Christianity, much less those who actually live by its teachings.
What fascinates me about the whole evolution debate is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator. In fact, evolution BEGS FOR a designer. For people to fail to see this boggles the mind.
I wasn't aware that Christianity required society have something to offer them in terms of their belief. I would have thought that faith is exactly that which does not require authentication from a secular world.
The whole "digging in " thing is characteristic of all forms of fundamentalism.
By creating a world view which is under constant assault by the forces of "non-belief", fundamentalists strengthen their sense of community, mission and urgency. Fighting for the belief system becomes literally a matter of life and death, since the larger world is always at the ready to snuff out the faithful unless heroic measures (augmented by God) are taken, and taken repeatedly.
That's what makes fundamentalist movements such potent adversaries; they are committed in a way and for reasons most of us would find difficult to match in terms of intensity.
Originally posted by finagain
[B]Creationism, as a modern movement, is a response to the incremental (but persistent) persecution of Christians in America over the past quarter-century./b]
Give me a break. Christians are not persecuted in America. Not one damn bit. When they disallow Christians from marrying, then we can talk persecution. When people are routinely fired for being Christian, then we can talk persecution. When the government kicks the doors in of Christian homes and arrests them for, I dunno, praying, then we can talk persecution. When they make Christians sit at certain tables in restaurants or ride at the back of the bus, or disallow them from voting, then we can talk persecution.
What the fundie Christians call "persecution" is multiculturalism -- fundie Christians are such fanatics that they think that allowing Muslims, Jews and others to live as full and equal citizens, without having Christianity shoved on them by the government, is somehow "persecution" of Christians.
Not allowing Christian prayers at the start of a school event or day is NOT persecution.
Not allowing Christian doctrine to be taught in school classes is NOT persecution.
Not allowing public money to go to giant statues or monuments that do little but proclaim the Christian religion is NOT persecution.
Only a fool would think it is.
Originally posted by dmz
Actually evolution as an idea has used up it's alloted time on the World's stage. Fanatacism by acedemia---that reacts violently to the notion of even questioning whether evolution is rational---is the sign that acedemia has dug in, and locked arms. Those of you plugged into AOLTIMEWARNER and VIACOM will be the last to realize this.
Perfectly consistent only if you can pick and choose what is truth in the Bible (or the Koran, for that matter).
Pick and choose.... I guess the earth IS the center of the universe then? DMZ if you're going to take genesis at face value then you need to take the entire bible at face value.
I go to a Christian church every week, often twice a week. If I recognize any God it is the Trinity. But I will not stand by and let those who do not believe as I usually do be spat upon and trampled down by evil fundamentalists who are trying to use the government to indoctrinate people into fairy tales about six day creations and the superiority of man over women, to name just two bullshit notions common among fundamentalists.
Evolution and Christianity are 100% compatible.
There is no scientific reason to doubt evolution. It has been assaulted by scientists from all sides for over 150 years, and has proven malleable enough to remain the only credible option for the development and speciation of life on this planet.
Evolution does not claim that there is no God. Evolution is silent on that subject.
If the Pope can be a Christian and an evolutionist, clearly those claiming that is impossible are the ones living in a fantasy world.
Originally posted by faust9
Pick and choose.... I guess the earth IS the center of the un iverse then?
To say nothing about it being flat, faust, as it is clearly depicted as being in the creation myths of Genesis.
Originally posted by faust9
Pick and choose.... I guess the earth IS the center of the un iverse then?
I dunno---are blacks and aborginies still subhuman?
Originally posted by Kirkland
A religion is an organized form of worship and recognition of a divine entity, usually a Creator. What divine entity is common among all pluralists, as you call us?
don't be simple-minded Kirkland, you've only shifted ultimacy.
Evolution and Christianity are 100% compatible.
-only if the system of truth presented in the Bible is self-contradictory.
Originally posted by dmz
I dunno---are blacks and aborigines still subhuman?
Hey, don't turn this around onto me. You're the one arguing creationism. You're the one advocating taking one book of the bible at face value. You're the one who needs to clarify why one part of the bible is an allegory while another is not. I don't. I believe in God. I go to Mass. I don't believe in creationism.
So again, is the Earth the center of the known universe? Answer the question. Don't dodge and evade. Don't reply with round answer that lead nowhere. ATQ yes or no. Because you either believe the earth is the center of the known universe as the bible states or you're arguing to a hypocritical end.
Evolution does NOT claim that blacks or aborigines are sub-human. If racist Europeans in the 1800s tried to use evolution to posit such a notion, that doesn't surprise me. But evolutionary theory CHANGES as new evidence is revealed and unearthed.
Evolution as we understand it today is far removed from evolution as it was understood in 1904. But in the last 100 years, no evidence has emerged to credibly challenge the foundational notions of evolution, outside of the masturbatory fantasy of deluded fundamentalist fanatics. In fact, evolution is far more proven today than it ever has been. The evidence for it is mountainous.
But the theory will still change over time. It has to. That's what science does -- it changes to reflect new evidence. If credible evidence is shown that exposes flaws in modern evolutionary thinking, such evidence will be integrated into the body of scientific thought regarding this topic. Just as it always has in the past.
Is religion as flexible?
Or must we rip out our brains and submit to the nonsense worldview of 2000 years ago in order to be good Christians?
Originally posted by dmz
Only a fool would look at humanism/pluralism and not see just another religion.
Not "humanism/pluralism". Just pluralism. That is, humanists, christians, jews, wiccan, buddhists, animists, atheists, agnostics, muslims, naturists, hindi, satanists, new agers, goddess worshipers and anything else you can think of or care to subscribe to.
The collapse of this vast and varied world of relationship to the divine into "humanism/pluralism" speaks volumes about the fundamentalist relationship to the rest of the world.
Originally posted by finagain
[B]Creationism, as a modern movement, is a response to the incremental (but persistent) persecution of Christians in America over the past quarter-century.
I don't know that you can draw a distinction between creationism as a modern movement and creationism as an historical one. Indeed, when you think about it, when we look at this "debate" historically, creationism is the default position and natural selection/evolution is the insurgent position.
With that said, I disagree with your representation of "modern" creationism as the result of the oppression of Christianity. The issue is simply that a thousands year-old set of myths about the origin of mankind are being called into question, and Christians and Christianity are balking at this. This is not the first time inherited sets of beliefs have been challenged. Copernicus and Galileo come to mind. Hell, Galileo was just un-ex-communicated a few years ago (you will recall he had the whacky notion that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around). This is nothing new, and indeed, the terms of the debate have hardly shifted at all since the Huxley/Wilberforce debates in the c19. The only difference I can think of is that "creationists" (a silly term, I think) are attempting to use science to undermine the theories underpinning evolution, natural selection, planet formation, geology, biology, and a whole host of other disciplines.
The idea that Christians have been "persecuted" in America over the past 25 years is, I think, both hyperbolic (no one is rounding them up and shooting them in soccer fields) and wrong-headed. Christianity, in all of its stripes, is the dominant and most powerful religion in the world. Christians have controlled, from top to bottom, American history and politics throughout this country's history. There are massive networks devoted to fundraising and spreading the word. Just because the evangelical revival has died down (alas, time passes) doesn't mean that Christians are nearing extinction--no matter what they often seem to want to argue.
Fundamental types feel that they're surrounded, and the only response is to lock arms and dig in.
Fundamental types are surrounded. In fact, they are always surrounded. This is important to think about, I believe. The notion that you are a "fundamentalist" can only emerge in response to some institutional change (thus, before they were fundamentalists, they were mainstream). "Fundamentalism" as a discrete category of believers is always a response to that change.
In some ways they're justified in feeling that way, because society has absolutely nothing to offer those who profess Christianity, much less those who actually live by its teachings.
Well, that's a broad claim. I would argue that fundamentalists believe that the modern world against which fundamentalism is a response has nothing to offer them. This is because fundamentalism, at its heart, seeks to undo the modern world and return to the time when its "fundamental" beliefs were mainstream. For us, this would mean returning to the 15th century (depending upon your stripe of Christianity).
What fascinates me about the whole evolution debate is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator. In fact, evolution BEGS FOR a designer. For people to fail to see this boggles the mind.
I would suggest that this is only true for Darwin's articulation of the theories. There's a very real and specific reason for this: Darwin is essentially a Romanticist. That is, he clearly subscribes to a set of philosophies (inherited through a Hellenic revival in the c18 in England and filtered through the dominant poets/philosophers of the early c19) about "nature" as a) somehow an agent capable of action and intent and b) the means of accessing the mind of God. Over and over again in Origin of Species Darwin remarks that nature has the best interests of the species in mind. It is easy to dismiss these references as Darwin simply anthropomorphizing nature for literary purposes, but I don't think that's what he's doing. I think he envisions a consciousness at work behind it all. Modern evolutionary theory does not, to my knowledge, concern itself with such vestigial matters.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Kirkland
DMZ, what does that have to do with anything?
Either the National Geogrphic society or the Smithsonian Institution had aborginies shot and stuffed---and yes it's been some time since that happened---but it was once as commonly accepted as the geocentric universe that blacks were subhuman. (per Darwin)
Originally posted by faust9
Hey, don't turn this around onto me. You're the one arguing creationism.
...actually I'm questioning evolution and it relationship to science.
(Nice try, though)
Originally posted by finagain
What fascinates me about the whole evolution debate is that evolution is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the notion of an all-powerful and generous Creator.
Evolution is not consistent with a literal reading of the Bible, however, and for some people, that means it must be wrong because they know that the Bible is utterly and completely correct in every detail.
Such Biblical literalists might play at the game of science, might want to add the imprimatur of science to their credentials, and might try to clumsily to use science to batter their opponents, but in the end, science for such people is only a sideshow. They already know the Truth via Faith.
In fact, evolution BEGS FOR a designer. For people to fail to see this boggles the mind.
Evolution could be reconciled with such a concept, but it hardly requires any "Creator" concept.
A big bug-a-boo for creationists, be they Biblical literalists or believers in something like God-assisted evolution, is the issue of complexity. Living things (not to mention physical constants and the like, if you're getting cosmology and biogenesis and evolution all jumbled up, as creationists often do) are so complex, and work together so well in concert with other living things and the world at large, that, this reasoning goes, only a Creator could have designed such "perfection".
But how does proposing the existence of a Creator solve the complexity problem? All it does is move unexplained complexity from a realm where it may be difficult, but it's far from impossible, to perform experiments, gather evidence, look for patterns, etc., to a mysterious box named "God" that you can't measure, can't experiment with, can't hope to explain.
Creationist often act like scientists reject God as an answer to the mysteries of life out of some (often described as evil or even Satanic) hatred of God. But the reason to reject God as an answer is that God simply isn't much of an answer. God explains too much, without being testable or falsifiable in any way.
I can explain away the entire universe as a figment of my own imagination, quite thoroughly. There's not a challenge you could make to such a "theory" as long as I'm willing to ascribe infinite cleverness and inventiveness to my own imagination. Why, my imagination is so powerful that I imagined myself right into existence so that I could imagine my imaginings!
This "theory" is both thoroughly bulletproof, and thoroughly useless at the same time.
Remember Occam's Razor: One phrasing is "Given two explanations of seemingly equal validity, the simplest explanation is most often correct." But another important phrasing is "Entities should not be needlessly multiplied."
One can assume that (1) the physical universe and its observable constituents of energy and matter are in and of themselves capable of achieving the complexity of life...
...or...
One can assume that (2) the physical universe and its observable constituents of energy and matter are not sufficient, and introduce a new entity into the equation which, with no explanation or testing, is simply assumed to be the source of all of the necessary complexity.
Occam's Razor obviously favors the first explanation. Occam's Razor isn't a perfect rule, it's merely a guideline, but it generally serves quite well. For those who wish to deride evolution as "bad science", Occam's Razor certainly puts evolution ahead of creationism.
Originally posted by dmz
...actually I'm questioning evolution and it relationship to science.
(Nice try, though)
No you're not. You have yet to present a "Scientifically sound" argument against evolution. Simply saying
There IS NO SCIENCE that supports evolution, there is no "science" to reject.
IF the earth was made of pristine elements, IF you assume to understand the true nature of universe you can logically deduce that the universe and the earth are quite ancient. The "science" abruptly ends there.
because the only thing this statement does is debunk ALL science.
In fact, you made this statement already:
---scientifically speaking, evolution and science are at odds.
Prove it. You present evidence that supports your statement. I've read Darwin's works. I've read modern revisions of how evolution works (Darwin was wrong when he hypothesized survival of the fittest). Your statement shows you have a misunderstanding of the scientific method. What Darwin wrote a hundred years ago is not fact today. The foundation of his hypothesis is that evolution occurs but that's it. Move on past Darwin because the scientific world has.
So, if evolution is at odds with science then what are the steps of the scientific method?
Science is not "we think of it now and it will always apply." Science is we Hypostesize now and revise as our understanding improve. You have presented a hypothesis that evolution isn't science well then prove it. Show us where the scientific method can't be applied to a modern understanding of evolution. Show us evidence that supports your claim.
PS still waiting on whether the earth is the center of the universe.
[edit] Changed sun to earth. It pains me to even think the earth is the center of it all.