Web browsing
I came across a site today, in which a girl talked about watching a TV programme that involved a mother telling her child how creation theory was the be-all and end-all, and science was all lies. The girl made the comment on how it made her mad that the child, and other children in Christian fundamentalist families were being brainwashed. I couldn't resist sending a comment back, as I feel this is one of the stumbling blocks for many pre-christians in accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour; that they believe the Bible and science are seperate, and can only contradict one another. The original post can be found here
This was my reply:
It's interesting that you talk about brainwashing Christians. I'm not arguing with you that what the mother said was wrong. What she said was wrong, but I feel I need to express my own opinions here (even though I came across this site by googling my nickname). I am a university student doing a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry and I am a Christian. A creationist at that. Despite the many allegations that science has to dispel a 6-day creation, I have found no backup proof to claims. I believe science has an important impact on our lives, but I think that to say everything you hear about science and in science is correct, is a form of brainwashing in itself. To argue effectively against creationism you need to understand why you believe what you believe, with evidence to back it up, or essentually you're just defending someone else's theories and are the same as the mother on the TV programme you so despise. And it's a sad truth that much of science has become like that. People are so caught up on trying to reliquish the fact that there is someone who has more control over their lives than themselves that they are willing to "free" themselves by becoming slaves to lies.
If you have questions about my beliefs, or just want to have a go at me, then please email me @ aliasrayd@gmail.com. I believe that people deserve to know the truth, which is understandably near impossible to get published, based on the presupposed evolution stigma surrounding universities today.
Cheers,Rayd
This was my reply:
It's interesting that you talk about brainwashing Christians. I'm not arguing with you that what the mother said was wrong. What she said was wrong, but I feel I need to express my own opinions here (even though I came across this site by googling my nickname). I am a university student doing a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry and I am a Christian. A creationist at that. Despite the many allegations that science has to dispel a 6-day creation, I have found no backup proof to claims. I believe science has an important impact on our lives, but I think that to say everything you hear about science and in science is correct, is a form of brainwashing in itself. To argue effectively against creationism you need to understand why you believe what you believe, with evidence to back it up, or essentually you're just defending someone else's theories and are the same as the mother on the TV programme you so despise. And it's a sad truth that much of science has become like that. People are so caught up on trying to reliquish the fact that there is someone who has more control over their lives than themselves that they are willing to "free" themselves by becoming slaves to lies.
If you have questions about my beliefs, or just want to have a go at me, then please email me @ aliasrayd@gmail.com. I believe that people deserve to know the truth, which is understandably near impossible to get published, based on the presupposed evolution stigma surrounding universities today.
Cheers,Rayd
posted by Rayd at 1:09 pm
24 Comments:
Andrew Brown here, different login :)
You should know by now that science is a search for truth. That the scientific method by definition is driven by evidence, and that what is considered "correct" isn't based on presumption but what the evidence says. Sure, you start out with an hypothesis, but the hypothesis isn't what ends up being the laws and theories of science. And in fact a hypothesis can never be proved correct, but only incorrect, or "not yet unproven" (which is btw why creationism/ID is not - and will never be - a science, it has the law/theory already decided and now looks for evidence to back it up, and the hypothesis that earth was created/designed can't be falsified, it's barely a philosophy, let alone a science)
You know all of that though, I know you do, because I've learnt it this year doing the course you did last year.
So in light of that, how do you retain a belief in creationism? If the earth was 6,000-10,000 years old the evidence would point towards it and science would say it was that old. Science does not have an agenda, it's objectively looking for the truth no matter what it is. There are mountians of evidence that back up the earth being ~4-6 billion years old.
Where did this evidence come from? Do you think maybe it's a misinterpretation of the evidence?
I hope this doesn't sound too offensive, but it's just utterly illogical to say that the evidence and subsequent conclusions are wrong because they contradict an ancient text written 4000 years ago, and which the reason you believe that over the science is, well, purely because of an unfounded belief? It goes against everything science stands for, which is evidence.
This isn't really about faith in the bible, it's about complete willful ignorance of facts. The bible has come up against science before, geocentrism was a biblical belief (earth centre of universe) but eventually science proved it wrong, despite strong resistance from the church. How long until christians realise that maybe another part of the bible isn't literal and they should believe science where it actually has evidence?
If you want to transfer this to email feel free arandacbrown@gmail.com because I feel very strongly about this, as it seems you do.
Well, I'm kinda glad you commented on this post. I can see that you do have a strong aversion to believing what I do. However many of the points you have made that show ID to be nothing more than philosophy also apply to many of the things we are taught alongside fact in our lectures. Lecturers are also more open about what they believe this year than last year when they followed the strict cirriculum of HSFY, and there are some biochemistry lecturers who have put forward ID as an option by referring us to pro-Creationsist science books alongside pro-evolution science books.
You meantioned that science is about searching for truth. Scientific method follows strict guidelines which must be used in order to support hypotheses. For an experiment to have any significance at all in supporting a hypothesis it must be observable, empirical and measurable. And I quote, "ALL hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations in the natural world". Here presents a problem. You see, when it comes to evolution, you cannot observe the past and so it cannot be based on scientific method.
Ahh, you say, but we can observe now... Correct. However, what do we observe now? We can see adaptations (genetic variation within a species, we can see reduction evolution, but not a lot else. An evolutionist then says, "well what we observe here can be applied to a wider context: genetic variation within a species is like genetic variation across a species, so let's say that all species are similar (doesn't disprove creation, Gd made us with similar proteins, etc so that we are all able to survive on this planet)and thus came from a common ancestor. PRESUMPTION! They say, well it appears that rather than these particular genomes becoming more complex, they actually get small and more simple, so rather than a simple organism becoming more complex, a complex organism becomes simple. (I think I've said that enought to make a point)Let's still call it evolution, just add reduction to it... UMM...LOOKS LIKE THIS SUPPORTS ID AND THE FALL MORE THAN IT COULD EVER SUPPORT EVOLUTION, WHY NOT CALL IT DEVOLUTION IF YOU HAVE TO MAKE A NAME FOR IT!
You also talked about aging of the world. Well as you know, carbon dating works by measuring radioactive Carbon 14 levels in a specimen and comparing it to the amout of carbon 12 that has been left. The problem with this is that from about 40,000 years +, carbon 14 levels are so expedentually small that you cannot measure them to find an accurate date. Several reasons for this: one, because C14 degrades expedentially readins after this date are so bunched together that measurements of almost no C14 are impossible to differentiate; and two, c14 doesn't degrade exactly as it should, calculations are based on averages of spontaneous degradations and at such a low number of remaining C14 this makes a massive difference; and three, carbon dating does not take into account any natural activities such as seismic activity, volcanic erruptions, or prolonged suspension under water, ALL of which impact the levels of c14. So all carbon dating tells us is that they need a more accurate measure of dating specimens because the one they have is flawed.
So,when you say that Creationism has not been supported and evolution has, I think you need to question whether what you are being told in an institution (a breeding zone for brainwashing), is really true and if evidence is there to back it up. I am told plenty about how right the lecturer up the front is, and in several lectures a lecturer will show us a scientific research article and tear it apart with all the things he believes are not supported or are false, he then goes on to tell us why his opionion is correct over the article's but has no evidence himself for backing it up.
I believe that people today only hear what they want to hear, and in reality, most people just go with the flow because it's the easy way. I have to continually struggle against people who fight my beliefs yet do not know what I beleive or why hey believe what they believe. I am not saying that you are one of these people, because I know you have put time into thinking about this, and I respect you for having your opinions, but I do believe that what I believe is right and whatyou believe is wrong.
Problems with carbon dating
You're probably right about a number of points there, but the thing is, is that carbon dating is one of many forms of radioactive dating, which only has a practical use up to about 60,000 years. There are many other methods people can use.
Lecturers, opinions and brainwashing
I agree, people need to make sure they think for themselves and do lots of checking/research etc, and lecturers certainly are not perfect, and while they all have opinions it is unfortunate that not all prefix their opinions with saying so. But to say this amounts to brainwashing is a very bold statement, and quite unfair given that it could only rightly be said about a very small amount of lecture time. Fortunately people are asked to do research on their topics using textbooks and are also given completely open forums (blackboard) to ask question to all the students and teachers alike for all to see. An environment that opens itself up to outside criticism and question can hardly be brainwashing for anybody except those who don't choose to question, which has more to do with being raised without being taught to question than anything else.
Why do you think almost all scientists "believe" totally in evolution? Do you think scientists as a whole are people who are easily brainwashed? They demand proof, yet if you sampled them, you'd find that they'd say that evolution was one of the most proven of all the theories.
While it's not on topic, but relevant to both of us, the church is far far worse at brainwashing than university ever will be. When will the church ever challenge your faith? When will the church ever do anything except try their hardest to keep you in the faith? You probably think they are two very different things, but they are not. People standing up the front telling you what to believe. At least university doesn't tell you how to also live your life and it certainly doesn't seek to remove you or silence you if you don't do what they say (totally disruptive behaviour etc notwithstanding).
scientific method, observation etc
I wanted to save this to last. You talk about open mindedness in your post, but it seems to me like you're not very open minded towards evolution. You know how I started to "believe" in evolution? I was on a relatively liberal internet forum, and I was trying to ask questions to prove evolution wrong, I can't remember what questions I had, but I had lots, and every single question I asked and statement I made, the people had decent answers to reply with, they got me thinking. Now I could have just been asking those questions to try to get them to change their minds, but that would be hypocritical if I didn't have an open mind to what they said to me, so I tried to have one. Eventually after a few sessions of this over the space of maybe 3 years I finally worked out that it made perfect sense. It was a big blow to the ego, and initially I felt like I was abandoning something by doing this. But then I realised the truth was far more important than my beliefs.
I don't know why you think that fossils aren't observations of the natural world? There is a massive fossil record showing thousands of different species. There's far more examples of genetic variation than you mention. It's very difficult for us to experience evolution before our very eyes because it's a very slow process, but that doesn't mean we can't observe it's direct results. Look at dogs, and the massive range of them. People would say they are all one species, but if they were, they'd be able to mate and have offspring, but some can't, the smallest dogs cannot mate with the largest dogs naturally. I know it's a unnatural example due to mans interference, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen naturally. Foxes, wolves and dogs all belong to the family Canidae. They share some remarkable similarities, they can even produce offspring, yet they are clearly different. Why? Because at some stage the animals got split up, and slowly due to mutations and natural selection, one group changed in a different way to the other group. Now they're a different species (which by the way means nothing at all since it's just a label we put on them). Go back to the suborder and it's easy to see how this process also produced bears. Some group got split up, and mutations and natural selection sent one towards bears and one towards dogs.
Why is this so hard to believe? Because of this simplification concept you talk about? (Where's the evidence that genomes only get smaller/simpler? Gene transference, polyploidy, there's a number of methods to increase the raw size of the genome) I don't think it's really that hard to believe, are you open minded to it? Evolution isn't a presumption, that would imply that the idea for evolution came before the evidence, where as it came as a direct result of interpretation of the evidence.
I really don't think this has to do with science for you Andrew, there are mountains of evidence to back up evolution, and it's so available, but without an open mind to it, it's useless.
And if you can calmly claim that evolution doesn't fit the bill of science, how can you ever say creationism can?
If you're going to approach science with scepticism, well that's good, a healthy level of scepticism goes a long way, but there is so much more to be sceptic about creationism than evolution could ever have. youtube gives us a video of some guy disproving evolution using a banana. I've even seen this in my church back in the day. It's completely rubbish, since it turns out that wild bananas are nothing like that, but those are a result of artificial selection by man over the years. So often reading about creation as a "science" brings me up against these kinds of arguments. a photo of a triceratops with a saddle at a creation museum. Creationism is full of this stuff. It has no grounding whatsoever in science and is based on a presupposition and isn't open to any change of it. Now I know it's slightly unfair to show these aspects of creationism, but only slightly. Because those are the kinds of things creationism and anti-science brings. It's nonsense.
Well said Rayd, your reply hits the nail on the head.
Too often I hear that us Christians have 'been brainwashed' and are not thinking for ourselves, yet you have shown that we have an independent mind capable of our owns thoughts and actions. We can interpret science as complimentary or contradictory to our beleifs. There is room for us in our walk with God to examine and explore the intricacies of creation, and it doesn't all have to disprove creationism. Sometimes people use science as a method to take down the notion of God, sometimes we can see God at work through the eyes of the scientific method.
Brainwashed people can't think for themselves, they merely spew the learned rhetoric. We can, and we do, think and speak our own minds, wether we are right or wrong.
I think you guys have a weird idea of brainwashing.
To believe science at face value, well, that's not being brainwashed. It would be if you couldn't get behind the scenes yourself or if you couldn't personally stand to change science, but that's not science.
There is simply far too much information out there about everything to do your own research on every topic, but people out there have dedicated their lives to searching for the truth, whatever that may be. It is safe to take it at face value as long as you understand what science is. Science does not claim to be the ultimate knowledge, it claims to be the best we understand right now. You don't like what science says? Fine, publish a paper and prove "them" wrong, you're completely free to do that. How do this fit with brainwashing?
If you think learning science is brainwashing, then you've been brainwashed to think that.
Publish a paper
There is a problem with that in that in order to get a paper published it has to be inline with what the publishers believe. New Scientist does not publish anything pro-creation. It's been tried before. The only publishers who will publish are christian magazines, and as such - the majority of evolutionist-scientists will not read it. Those that do will not consider anything in a Christian magazine as plausible science.
People standing up the front telling you what to believe. At least university doesn't tell you how to also live your life and it certainly doesn't seek to remove you or silence you if you don't do what they say
Lecturers do tell you what to believe. I have had lecturers make comments like, "there are still idiotic people in scientific circles that believe in a 6-day creation". Hmmm... If someone directly contradicted an opinion of the lecturer then I don't think you would be in that lecture for much longer - especially because in a lecture theatre you wouldn't just get the lecturer yelling at you but also all the class mates who don't want anyone voicing an opinion that supports creation.
it seems to me like you're not very open minded towards evolution.
I'm not. However, being from a christian background, I have had the privilege of having both creation and evolution rammed down my throat. This means that I have had time to think about what is right and what is wrong in my mind. What I believe in is well thought out. So I have been openminded in the past and I am open to disagreeing with what i hear in a church service or read in a christian book. However I am not openminded in the sense that I believe people who believe in evolution could be right, because I don't believe they are.
Regarding your fossils paragraph, I have no quams about whether dinosaurs once existed. I believe they did. I don't think they couldn't co-exist with every other species around. Dogs is a terrible example of genetic variation because of what you just said, and Dogs, wolves and foxes are all different species, not from the same ancestor. I never said that genomes don't get larger. You have insertions in DNA. You are looking at something that we can observe and claiming that it supports a larger theory of ameoba to human evolution which is not observable.
Creationism can explain genetic differences in that when God created the world and everything in it it was very good (ie perfect Adam arguement and as time has gone on and mutations, etc have increased variation has occurred and degradation (as a primary, evolution as a secondary) as occurred. I don't have a problem with this concept, and I don't believe many scientists have thought about it. Why? Because there is no such thing as unbiased science. An evo-scientist isn't going to do a paper on how something supports creation, likewise a creationist isn't going to do a paper on how something supports evolution, and so anything either of them finds to support the other will be discarded and not included in their paper. Anyway, HUBS exam tomorrow, as you know, I really need to get to sleep so I won't keep arguing. Good luck!
hey nice meet you all, im a mate of rayds but for all intensive purposes dont think ill side with somebody's thesis because their a friend.
I see you two are going on about
" media-science brainwashing ", essentially what your aiming at rayd is the fact you feel that a certain amount of persecution and bias seems to hold the exclusion of creationist beliefs (abrahamic/christian exclusive relgious creation theory).
The reason behind the bias is because your trying to introduce a bias ontological theory into a system that has that handy ability of observability to begin with something religious science has a hiccup with and is essentially the reason why its "frowned" at by academics, doesnt mean it's brainwashing, just those are the current facts that we have to go with and frankly if we disregard that why should we agree with an ontological perspective let alone christian? what about hindu, buddist or even african tribal lore?, they can actually function just aswell as your argument in the same scenario.
for the evolution debate i will simply say it lacks clear definition of the correct way it functions, simply because we dont see it doesnt mean it doesnt occur afterall isnt that a key foundation of the creationist argument?
As for the fox, wolf and dog situation i wouldnt say its a bad example it is after an observable form of evolution(adaptive radiation, mutation and genetic drift) if you killed of the dogs inbetween those select wolf and key doglines you would have by current definition evolution and from this "reductionalism" further mutations and genetic drift and what not would occur resulting in those lineages diverginging into their own "trees".
something that ticks me off personally about alot of modern thought christians is the twisting of scientific facts or theories until they formulate one that supports their perspective yet has no application or tested let alone statiscal judgement or logical theory applied in relation to the original study made and then proceed to claim doom and gloom upon everyone within peripheral sight because their opinion is the "true science fact", which why rayd sadly to say as you said before your classmates would be angry with you, i know you wouldnt mean it that way but perception in todays society is a funny thing,well
This comment has been removed by the author.
@ Karl
Yeah man I agree with all of it except the lack of punctuation!
@Rayd
How was hubs? I feel OK about it, the first few pages of multichoice questions kicked my ass, but after that went ok. Guessing 60-70% for it, which'll bring my hubs total to about 70-75% I hope. CELS is going to be the one that hurts me, I only got 54% on the midterm, which I was not expecting.
You're probably right about the publishing paper thing, although I wouldn't class New Scientist as somewhere to actually publish a paper, it's a magazine not really peer review.
I do think though that if a creationist actually produced a plausible scientifically valid paper that it would be taken seriously.
It'd be interesting to question a lecturer. I don't think you'd be removed for simply asking a question, although I wasn't referring exactly to asking during a lecture, but maybe afterwards. If a lecturer made that comment about people who thought the earth was round, well, sure it's opinion, but it's based on observed fact. Scientists consider evolution observed fact.
I understand you don't have an open mind to evolution, but if you don't have an open mind, then this is kinda pointless. But believe me, the same thing that happened with geocentrism and the church eventually believing is going to happen with evolution. The amount of churches that believe in young earth creation is shrinking. I really think a lot of Christians are afraid of what might happen if they give in, because they're the only people who seem to give it any thought and still don't believe in evolution, which tells me it's less about the evidence and more about believing the bible over science.
The reason I don't think scientists will give creationism any time is because it's not really a science and it's not based in the scientific method. It's exactly the same reason Doctors don't give "alternative" medicine any time either, it's not scientifically valid and it can't even be disproved. The track records of creationists has been terrible as well, so it's understandable too that they're not going to waste their time with the same conclusion-before-evidence stuff.
If you get time I'd like you to address this point if you address any: Is it possible that a creationist could find evidence that pointed to old earth evolution the way science understands it? If someone finds evidence that could change the current date that an animal evolved for example, it could change what science says is true. But this doesn't happen with creationism. By automatically assuming that everything proves creationism, there can be nothing but bias, nothing can truly be looked at for what it really is because there is always a presumption that the evidence HAS to fit in with the conclusion. Do you understand what I mean?
Do you have any links to one of these papers by the way that fail to get into peer-reviewe journals, I'd be interested to read one.
Hi Rayd, just a quick comment about your carbon-14 paragraph!
You say that carbon dating is no good for dating the age of the world (which is true, it has a half life of around 5,700 years and so is only good for dating things up to 60,000 years old) however we don't use carbon-14 to test the age of the Earth! For dates that far back we use things like Uranium-Lead dating. Uranium-238 has a half life of around 4.5 billion years meaning that in 4.5 billion years half of that uranium will have turned into lead, obviously, this is quite a large half life but because it is so large it allows use to date things down to 0.1 million years as well. Quite apart from that there are numerous other isotopes between carbon-14 and Uranium-238 (even within the Uranium to lead reaction there are numerous intermediary isotopes) with intermediate half lifes allowing for even greater accuracy! I know Andrew mentioned this but I thought I'd give you a little more detail. Hope this clears things up for you!
If ID would like to be treated the same as any other theory, it must be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny as every other theory. The biggest problem I find with ID proponents is they somehow believe that since they believe, ID shouldn't be criticized.
There are countless examples of other scientists who have published papers that flew in the face of accepted scientific teachings. ID, sadly, has none of the requirements to pass even into the lowest level of scientific understanding. As such, it has no place in any sort of scientific curriculum.
Ok, admittedly I found Karl's post difficult to understand, but I will try and reply to it as best I can.
The reason behind the bias is because your trying to introduce a bias ontological theory into a system that has that handy ability of observability to begin with
Ok, ID is not being introduced to science, science resulted by trying to understand how God works. Science, as a noun, is often used in the wrong context... I do not disagree with a lot of what science says is fact, however there are several things that people use the cover of science for which I believe are not science. Observable as many things are, a scientist has a duty to state observations and predict events or reveal implications, not state them alongside each other as fact. Other scientists have a responsibility to read a paper and take observations as observations and implications as implications. There is currently a communication error in this respect.
something religious science has a hiccup with and is essentially the reason why its "frowned" at by academics
"Religious science" as you have put it does not know all the facts instantly. All I am saying is there is science: within science, we have debates about particular topics because we do not have full evidence. It is just like any other part of science this topic of ID/evolution, only some scientists have already concluded that evolution has already won. Scientists are completely bias (can I stress it enough!) One of my lecturers completely believes all eukaryotic life originated from RNA viruses, whereas most other scientists say this is stupid because a virus cannot survive outside of a host and if there are no hosts then the virus cannot exist. I gave upa long time ago to try and teach people that creationism is the only right way (partly because I realised I didn't know enough to know all the facts) but also because I just want people to see that the arguement is a reasonable one which cannot be dispelled, yet we are taught like there is only one way - a way that is flawed in so many way but "a work in progress."
simply because we dont see it doesnt mean it doesnt occur afterall isnt that a key foundation of the creationist argument?
No! It is not a foundation of creationist argument, it is a factor of scientific method! And as evolution is a part of science, it should be subject to it.
As for the fox, wolf and dog situation
If you culled all the dogs between a big dog and a small dog, you would still have one species of dog, just a massive variation. However, I do believe that manipulation of man can cause change such as creation of new species, etc. I have a problem with the word species because people use it the wrong way. If a group of one species breaks into two and becomes seperated then yes the two groups will adapt to the environment differently and it could result in them being phenotypically very different (not in the sense that one could evolve to antelope and the other gazelle) but the two groups would still be one species.
...twisting of scientific facts or theories until they formulate one that supports their perspective yet has no application or tested
I have a problem with people who use implications from other papers as examples of previous evidence for their paper. And that happens a lot in science.
to Andrew,
Hubs was alright, I got stuck on the question about different types of antibodies and their structures. Seems that was a big area I didn't revise. Other than that I feel confident I did well.
I have asked lecturers questions at the end of a lecture before, and you do have a point that I have never been kicked out or anything, however I always guised my question by not revealing my own beliefs on the the matter, just appeared as a curious student - which is, in a way what I am. Some of my questions have been answered to a satisfactory degree, some others I'v either been told, "I'm not sure to be honest" or I've been given an answer I don't think fixes the problem. But then again, I don't claim to know it all and cannot be right all the time.
but if you don't have an open mind, then this is kinda pointless
I guess what i was trying to say in my last post was that, I make sure my mind has a defence around it - so that when I receive information from someone more qualified than me I don't immediately regard it as fact. Like you said, it's important to have a certain amount of scepticism in you.
The amount of churches that believe in young earth creation is shrinking. I really think a lot of Christians are afraid of what might happen if they give in,
I personally believe it is much more complex than that. For a start, the world is full of "comfortable christians" (Christians that are happy to have a relationship with God but don't wanna do anything out of their comfort zone.) This passive attitude is 1st world culture and people only tend to do things if they have to these days. So comfortablility coupled with apathy leads Christians to give up the what they believe because it's "too hard" to do otherwise. Another issue at the heart of this problem is that we are only taught that one of these theories is correct. In fact, we are not taught to differentiate the science of creation and the theory of creation, nor the science of evolution and the theory of evolution. We are taught that 6-day creation is a philosophy and evolution (though called the theory of) is scientific fact. The only thing people get out of the name "the theory of evolution" is that the fact of evolution is a work in progress.
The track records of creationists has been terrible as well
Only because Evolution is what is currently taught. That means we focus on the good points and successes of evolution and the bad points of everything else. To disagree with me here would be like saying that the USSR told people in Russia about the negitive points of communism to the same level that they badmouthed democracy. If you were a strong pro-democrat right now you would argue that democracy is the be-all-and-end-all to politics and would solve the worlds problems if all governments were democratic, however that is because you are blinded to your belief because you only recognise the positive aspects of it (and any negative aspects are disregarded by saying, "well it's still better than communism")
You see that I am trying to say that culture and environment is to blame for this one-eyed dogmatic approach to science. I get really annoyed when I hear that Christians try and only teach Creationsim in schools, and likewise, it pisses me off when I hear that some places make it illegal to teach creationism in schools because "evolution is the only correct science".
It's a long post bt almost at the end...
I think, in regards to yor question, that if a scientist believing in creationsim found good evidence to support old earth theory then I would be interested in looking into it and seeing what other creationists have to say about it. We have to understand that we don't know all the answers and we don't have all the facts.
If someone finds evidence that could change the current date that an animal evolved for example, it could change what science says is true
You're right, it could. However that is because it does not in anyway contradict that the earth is billions of years old. If an evolutionist found evidence to support a very young (<10,000yo) earth would it change anything? No. It would be dispelled as scientific error or badly done experiment because it contradicts the "fact" that the world is billions of years old and thus all "evidence" which supports that fact.
to Matt
I was aware of other methods but because I have not researched them enough I didn't use them as an example. I will respond to your comment, only I ask you grace me with some more time as I have two exams I still need to study for.
In response to Anon,
You are the perfect example of someone who has not looked into anything scientific published by a 6-day-creation-believing scientist
Yes there are christians who believe that 6 day creation is correct and do not know why they believe what they believe, but thre are plenty of christians who do know. There are also non-christian scientists who have a problem with such an old earth.
Part of the issue is toward Christianity more than the science of creationism. If creationism is right then what are the implications of that in our lives? People don't wanna answer that question because they think that if there is a God then they're gonna have to give up their way of life and become "enslaved" to God's will - so they can get to heaven. So a big part of the arguement comes into a false conception of Christianity.
Basically, Whichever theory is right, to whatever degree, my belief in a 6-day creation DOES NOT affect my faith, and so my relationship and perception of God will not change.
I guess I and most scientists would disagree that just because evolution is a long termed phenomenom, and that it's difficult for us to see the results before our eyes, that it isn't observable and therefore isn't science. As I said in another post, we can observe the fossil record, and there are actually experiments done which have caused speciation. Not everything has to be observed before us with our very eyes otherwise we wouldn't trust a host of theories and properties like the charge on an electron or even that electrons life in orbitals due to their wave nature. We can't observe these things either, but we can see the result of them in things we can observe (fossils and the photoelectric effect) and when you postulate a theory that fits all the data, it's deemed correct until a more accurate one comes along.
All that you need for a new species (this isn't the definition btw) is to have two organisms that at some stage in their lineage they could produce offspring, but now they can't. That's already the case with large and small dogs, and we've observed it happening with flies etc. You admit that a separated group of animals could phenotypically, why not genotypically?
And regardless, it's still by definition impossible to consider creationism a science. A science has to be testable and falsifiable. Creationism cannot fit either of those two categories.
I understand why you think scientists are bias towards evolution. It's because there are mountains of evidence and it has been collecting for over 100 years. Not only does creationism have to show that evolution is false but also show that creationism is correct. This will be very very very hard. You seem to think of this almost as a negative point of science, but it's merely a protective one.
Take the big bang for example, when it was first postulated, big science thought it was a load of crap for a lot of reasons. It took over 40 years for the evidence of the big bang to come together for it to be an accepted model of the origin of the universe, and even now it's still not completely believed in all science circles.
Evolution has been gaining evidence and understanding for over three times that long. Of course it's going to be hard to prove creationism over evolution. But there is a reason, and it's not because the science isn't open to new ideas, it's just that evolution is one of the most solid of all the scientific theories.
It would be dispelled as scientific error or badly done experiment because it contradicts the "fact" that the world is billions of years old and thus all "evidence" which supports that fact
The reason it would be dispelled is because if one paper says one thing and literally thousands say another, then yes it will be viewed as incorrect. So until creationists can produce enough evidence to overwhelm all of evolution evidence, then it's never going to get far. If it turns out that creationism is true, then eventually enough evidence will come about to prove it, only that's not actually happening in any amount.
Plate tectonics? How are they explained by young earth theory. Dinosaurs make so sense, there would at least be some evidence that they existed other than a couple of passages in the bible about "monsters". How did all the dinosaurs across the earth die at the same time if they co-existed with humans without killing the humans?
So yeah, you're 100% convinced in a young earth, so I'd like to see some of this evidence that gives you such a strong conviction despite almost all of science going in it's face.
Only because Evolution is what is currently taught. That means we focus on the good points and successes of evolution and the bad points of everything else. To disagree with me here would be like saying that the USSR told people in Russia about the negitive points of communism to the same level that they badmouthed democracy. If you were a strong pro-democrat right now you would argue that democracy is the be-all-and-end-all to politics and would solve the worlds problems if all governments were democratic, however that is because you are blinded to your belief because you only recognise the positive aspects of it (and any negative aspects are disregarded by saying, "well it's still better than communism")
This shows your ignorance of the scientific method. Science does not establish a position and then defend it unbudgingly, the way a political system is all-too-often defended; scientific facts are simply the currently-accepted implications of currently-available evidence. It would be as though the Soviet Union would, every time Communism was substantively criticized, amend Communism to eliminate the error, the cause of the criticism. It is self-correcting; there is no meaningful "other" side of an "argument" with science. It is true that within the scientific community, there are disagreements over how to explain phenomena, but ideally (and as far as evolution is concerned, in practice) these matters are weighed for a generation or so, or until clearer evidence is obtained, and a consensus is formed until the next breakthrough comes about.
I think the controversy surrounding evolution has the unfortunate effect of slamming literalist Christians up against a mountain of contradictory data, one of the most evidence-laden bodies of science, and causing them to conclude that science is inflexible. What has happened is that a a wall of evidence has been formed; there are so many phenomena inexplicable without either the theory of evolution or a mocking designer (who makes it LOOK as though evolution brought the circumstances into being and whose existence can never be disproved, but safely ignored) that science really is inflexible in that no small amount of evidence is going to "change its mind" about this theory, because the current explanatory power is so great as to cause all but the best-attested (and repeatedly demonstrated) counter-arguments to be incredibly doubtful simply because they cannot explain that which evolution explains. When you assert that gravity makes things fall down, and someone releases a helium balloon, you need not necessarily abandon gravity as a theory but you must make some adjustments. Fine; adjustments are made to evolution all the time.
In essence, there are no "bad points" of evolution to discuss. To be sure, there are irrelevant phenomena that Creationists bring up in their ignorance of what evolution actually is, (abiogenesis, for example), and there are yet-to-be-fully-explained phenomena that fall inside evolution's portfolio (Cambrian explosion, the exact effects of mass extinctions, etc.) and which are not explained by any other theory, including Creationism; but any valid criticism is incorporated into the science of biology. Science is not the Communist party, trying to enforce lockstep action and thought by every party member; it is a collection of explanations for phenomena. When phenomena change (or more meaningfully, when measurements are made or change), so does the science explaining them. It is as though when a dissident stood up and said "Really, this will never work, and here's why..." the whole Party meets, discusses his point, and if they concur, they change the party's platform, policy, and ideology to conform to the new idea, but still call it "Communism" because the platform is still mostly the same and has the same over-arching goals, but now a slightly different method. Evolution has come a long way since Darwin, thanks to the criticisms of both evolutionary biologists and the last ranks of special creation naturalists. No scientist seriously thinks that evolution is the "end-all-be-all" because they know that like every other theory ever proposed, it will change and acquire greater nuance and explanatory power. The problem for creationists is that the strongest criticisms of evolution always come from evolutionary biologists whose findings do not destroy evolution but change its application in a narrow way, or advance it to a new range of phenomena. Creationists, unable to accept even the basic facts of the universe (the age of the earth, especially; the comment above about carbon dating is hilariously representative of Creationists' carefully cultivated confusion concerning current dating methods) base their criticisms on unscientific assumptions and hence make unscientific criticisms. This is why they will never make any substantial criticism, this is why they feel that their words are falling on deaf ears: they are trying to yell their points across a 4.5 billion year chasm of misunderstanding.
Well said scratch. I just Rayd, you understand what me means and is saying
To be clear, when I said:
I think the controversy surrounding evolution has the unfortunate effect of slamming literalist Christians up against a mountain of contradictory data,
I meant evidence which contradicts the literalist's ideas, not data which contradicts itself (which is almost a contradiction in terms, but nevermind that).
Just dropping by to let you know that I've posted my take on the evolution theory on my blog. It's not sceintific, it's humorous though. I intend to point out the little things that are often missed in debates like this.
No science, what can I say? I'm bored with yappings abour sedimentary rocks and lumps of carbon. :p
I've responded to your blog, too. I look forward to your response. I may, uh, have been a little longer in responding than your original post, but, well, what can I say.
*Long, deep sigh of relief.*
I thought I would never make it back here.
Andrew, I have missed you like a long-lost son!!!
I shall read all your latest posts eagerly, but over time. SOOOO much has changed in my life for the better by God's grace and this believer's faithfulness.
Glad you're still here and keeping the faith.
The assertion that science is infallible (a common claim of atheists) is about as valid as the old dogma of Papal infallibility.
It ignores blatant frauds like Piltdown Man and Global Warming.
Evolution cannot explain creation anymore than religion can explain God, because God has already revealed Himself to man via His Word. Those who lust after rejecting that revelation grasp at anything that will suit their aims.
Ted, can you supply proof that anyone respectable claims science is infallible?
A claim like that comes from ignorance of the scientific method. Science has never ever claimed to be infallible, if anything, it proves to itself year after year that it IS fallible, but it's self awareness of that fact - and the search for truth within those constraints - is why it can be relied on.
It never claims to be the 100% truth, all it says is that "this makes the most sense of the evidence so far".
Consequently, do you believe in bible infallibility?
lunettesdesoleilparis.net homme pas cher
lunettes de soleil pas cher femme
lunettes de soleil Ray Ban pas cher 2012.
lunettes de soleil Chanel pas cher 2012.
lunettes de soleil Armani pas cher 2012.
Post a Comment
<< Home