The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I was struck by something writing the post above - another Creationist mirror-claim.

It is regularly claimed by Creationists that all of the evidence for evolution is "interpretation", which seems to be taken as weakening its case.

However, all the "evidence" we have seen offered for Creationism has also been "interpretation" - or rather reinterpretation of existing evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well Creationists claim that the interpretation of evolution, unlike something like gravity, is not obvious, that they have see all the same facts and they don't come to the same conclusion.

Which is nonsense really. It is obvious, its obvious to everyone but a Creationist. The reason it isn't obvious to a Creationist is because it causes them religious trouble.

It is a bit funny that the only areas of science Creationists have trouble, the only areas they claim are not obvious and open to different readings, are the areas that come into conflict with the Bible. Funny no?

I mean when was the last time you heard a Creationists claim that some theory like lens refraction was based only on interpretation and the results could go either way (maybe God makes the light refract).

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

So non-Creation scientists don't defend opposing models? Or if they do are they very confused even amoung themselves about how to interpret the evidence (read "make it up") ?

Yeah, they are. Except in science they will admit this, and be open to the idea they are wrong. Have you ever heard of String theory?

The problem with Creationism is that you have a ton of conflicting theories which each stating they are correct and everyone is wrong, since they each believe their theory validates the Bible, which as we all know can't be wrong.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, that seems to be how they treat each others arguments.

Nonsense arguments Wolfsbane, nonsense arguments. Arguments that make no sense. You keep leaving that bit out for some reason :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I would put abiogenesis and molecules-to-man evolution down as having an even bigger credibility problem.

You think that a well observed, modelled and predictable theory has bigger credibility problems that stating that God created stars one by one throughout the universe, some fully formed, some made to look very old, some already exploded, all so that light from each star could hit Earth at exactly the same time some 6,000 years ago yet be observed by no one because man had not been magically created yet.

I suppose that sums up Creationists right there :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

That's what Creation science is doing.

No, Creationism is providing made up answers so you don't have to do that.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is certainly one possible interpretation. I have already put its counterpart as to why most scientists go with evolution, an easy and comforting, albet incorrect, answer.

Evolution was never the easy answer. It is the complex, very hard to understand answer, the "holy-sh1t do you know what this means!" answer.

Evolution pretty much removes man's special place in the universe, that religion had maintained for thousands of years. It states that we are simply an animal (not that there is much "simple" about it), evolved from other animals, a result of a staggering and wondrous series of chemical reactions over a period of 4 billion years. Why you think anyone would choose to lie about that, to pick that as the lie, is beyond me.

Some theist have re-evaluated their religious outlook to make the theological argument that it is through this method and manner that a creator meant to create us, evolution is how he did it. Which is fine, from a scientific point of view, there is no way to prove or disprove that either way. Evolution has never invalidated God, nor does it set out to.

But others have more difficulty coming to terms with what nature is telling us, so the theory of evolution is met with hostility and aggression every step of the way, mostly from those who put all their faith in a literal reading of a holy book, particularly fundamentalists Christians with the Bible.

Evolution has been fought by the religious powers since it was first pondered over 250 years ago. People have gone to jail for studying and teaching evolution. And for what? Evolution doesn't provide any comforting answers. It doesn't tell you that you are special, that we humans are special. It isn't going to tell you that your suffering for the cause will be rewarded with ever lasting riches in heaven (though it doesn't tell you you won't etiher). It doesn't tell you that we have a special place in the universe, that we are unique amount the lesser animals, that we are the chosen ones. The only thing evolution provides is a glimpse at the truth. For some that is all that is important, for others they don't want to know because the truth isn't what they want it to be.

These are the difficult realities of the universe around us. Science has always been the difficult path, religion the easy one. And evolution is one of the most difficult of all scientific paths to go down because it deals with fundamental issues about who we are as a species.

At a lot of people cannot deal with that, so they retreat to the easy answers, back to the warm bussom of religion where the answers are always what you want to hear, the ones that make them feel warm and fuzzy inside. Evolution cannot be correct because we don't want it to be correct, we need to believe that humans are better than other animals, that we are special. We need to believe that our holybook is 100% literal. Creationism tells people that. Creationism tells people what they want to hear

The only problem is that it is a lie. But to some a comforting lie is better than an unwelcome truth.

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Hindu 'creationism' (HC) also puts man and dinosaur coeval, but for different reasons - the HC world is much much older than science finds it to be, and humans have been here all along.

They also claim that radiometric dating doesn't work - citing exactly the same "evidence" as Biblical Creationists (BC), right down to the same lava flows. However, they claim the dates it gives are far too young!

So, a brief answer to wolfsbane - Hindu cosmology is equally opposed to evolution, for entirely different reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's a very interesting factoid. I wonder what kind of arguements Hindu 'creationists' make and how big a phenomena it is.

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

The lone voice would be wrong maybe 99.9% of the time.

And therein lies the crux of it all.

The skeptic's position in today's world is not a conspiracy against anyone or anything. It is, rather, a simple acknowledgement of the validity of the comment you've just made. If given 100 people who make 100 different claims against mainstream science, I'll say right off the bat that every single one of them is wrong. From the position of no information other than that these people say science is wrong, I'll say each and every one of the 100 is mistaken.

I have almost-surity that I will be more often correct than I am incorrect. I would pur significant amounts of money that - at most - 2 of the claims could hold up to scientific scrutiny.

In short, taking the skeptical position regarding claims gives one the best odds of being right, right from the start.

Does this mean that none of the 100 can be correct? Of course not. Does it mean they all can't be correct? Nope - not that either. It means that none of them are likely to be correct.

From this perspective, the burden of proof should be clear. If you want to challenge the mainstream, then you have to show why you are right and the mainstream wrong. That the mainstream don't welcome you with open arms is not a conspiracy against you - its the only practical way of dealing with all "mainstream is wrong" claims equally.

No special treatment.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it scientifically more credible. Just because your idea is more popular than someone else's doesn't make it sccientifically more credible. Science is not a democracy, nor is it a popularity contest.

When dealing with mainstream-challenging concepts, there is a simple procedure to follow. It starts with "show me the evidence". That evidence will need to be of admissable quality - so double-blinded tests are ok, whereas opinions of your fellow believers are not. Methodology, samples, etc. will all be scrutinised to see whether or not you've met the burden of proof.

Now...here's the thing...this isn't discriminatory. Its an equally high hurdle for everyone to meet, whether they're discussing the existence of the Third Man, the specifics of genetic coding, climactic patterns, Creationism, the hollowness of the earth, or anything else.

Skepticism suggests that those who refuse to meet this burden of proof do so because they cannot meet it.

They will attack it as unfair, decry the system as being against them, argue that no-one can prove they're wrong (hence they must be right), complain that science is only another religion in its own right anyway, arguue that its a stacked system all about teh funding...whatever... What they will not do is accept that this is the entry requirement for the club, and even though they desperately want to be in the club, they think they and they alone should get a free pass that no-one before them has gotten. And naturally, the bar should be equally lowered for others, cause that would allow any number of crackpots in.

But of course, I can't say that....because if I draw such parallels, then I'm accused of trying to drag some "honuorable" idea by linking it with a "crackpot" one...as though those descriptions have meaning when they're not based on some sort of objective standard.....like the burden of proof demanded by science.

Consider this...in one of the latest cases in the US discussing whether or not ID should be allowed into the science classroom, the pro-ID argument basically was that the definition of science was no longer appropriate and needed to be refined. This refining would, as a result, naturally include ID. (Hopefully the reader can already see that if we must redefine science so ID is included, then ID is not inculded under the current definition). The defence (anti-ID-in-the-class) then pointed out that the proposed change in definition would also mean that witchcraft was to be considered a science - a point which the pro-IDers conceded.

Now just ask yourself...if you said to an ID proponent that their material was as scientific as witchcraft, you'd hear no end of how science / skeptics were biased against ID, how they refused to take it seriously, how it was all a conspiracy....pretty much all the type of stuff we've seen complained about here, really. On the other hand, when it came to having a shot at the classroom, it was the IDers themselves who said "we are as scientific as witchcraft, and we should redefine what science is so that we're both allowable on the curriculum".

Skepticism is not a conspiracy. It is, instead, capable of producing remarkably consistent results, based on being remarkably consistently applied.

Pick smoething you know people believe in, but which you believe to be mutty. Flat earth, maybe. Ask yourself why your ideam whatever it is, should be held to a lower standard of proof than this. If you believe that the burden of proof is unfair on you, ask what a lowered burden would mean for flat or hollow earthers, or for believers in the FSM, or whatever.

Will you insist your belief is science, if it means witchcraft, flat-earthism or some other non-science also is when held to the same standard?

Will you insist on being considered a special case, rather than just that we lower the boundary everywhere, in order to avoid the situation outlined in the previous question?

If you cannot answer no to both questions, then its not science you beileve in, but the only conspiracy against you is the one to keep science for the sciences.

If you can answer no to both questions, then you know what you have to do to gain entry to the club - meet the entry requirements. There is no conspiracy against you.

jc

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

That's a very interesting factoid. I wonder what kind of arguements Hindu 'creationists' make and how big a phenomena it is.

Apparently, they make nearly all the same arguments as Biblical Creationists - it's nearly all attacks on evolution, except this time assuming that if evolution is wrong, Vedic Creationism is right. In fact, they use a lot of the same 'evidence', including stuff that's been dropped by Biblical Creationists like the purported Cambrian footsteps etc.

It's reasonably widespread, and supported publicly by the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party, India's largest political party) rather more vociferously than the Republicans support Biblical Creationism, along with "prayers to smallpox goddesses, menstrual taboos, Hindu nature ethics which derive from orthodox ideas about prakriti or shakti, and even the varna order (caste system), which are defended as rational (even superior) solutions to the cultural and ecological crises of modernity."

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Apparently, they make nearly all the same arguments as Biblical Creationists - it's nearly all attacks on evolution, except this time assuming that if evolution is wrong, Vedic Creationism is right.

Funny that most Creationists groups, Christian Hindu or otherwise, think that is all they have to do. Show evolution is wrong, they win by default.

I think it would be hilarious to get a Christian Creationists group and a Hindu Creationists group in a room to bash out the school science curiculium for a school year.

Christian - We have proved evolution wrong, finally we will have science accept the existence of God is a possibility

Hindu - Yes hail Shiva!

Christian - Yes hail Shiva ... er ... wait, no not Shiva. Praise Jesus

Hindu - Jesus? I think you are mistaken. We have shown evolution is wrong, so Hindu Creationism is therefore correct. That is a fact

Christian - A fact? No it is you who are mistaken, as I think you will find that now evolution is shown to be wrong the Bible explains how the Earth was crerated. In 6 days, by God. In proving that evolution does not happen we have proved that this is who the universe was created. Science must accept our Bible. Praise the Lord.

Hindu - The Bible? What nonsense is this. You are as mistaken as the evolutionists. DIE!!

A holy war starts, causing the death of millions

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Funny that most Creationists groups, Christian Hindu or otherwise, think that is all they have to do. Show evolution is wrong, they win by default.

There is a school of thought which suggests that showing evolution to be wrong is the aim. The rest is just the window-dressing that is necessary to allow evolution to be undermined.

From this perspective, if they show evolution to be wrong, or induce doubt regarding evolution, they do indeed win by default.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

There is a school of thought which suggests that showing evolution to be wrong is the aim. The rest is just the window-dressing that is necessary to allow evolution to be undermined.

From this perspective, if they show evolution to be wrong, or induce doubt regarding evolution, they do indeed win by default.

But for what purpose?

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

But for what purpose?

I think you half answered this yourself here:

Wicknight wrote:

Creationism tells people what they want to hear

It takes a leap of faith to believe that people are actually capable of facing reality.

Leave aside people who might advocate Creationism for some self-serving reason, such as clerics fearing their congregation will desert religion. If you feel Evolution = Less God and Less God=Worse Society, then clearly you’ll struggle against evolution even if you know the theory to be correct and religion to be false.

I think this is the real debate here. It has very little to do with the fossil record, and a lot to do with people who believe that a godless society will eat itself.

robindch

Am out of the country. Haven't been keeping up <slaps wrist>. Nice to see that we're still going around in circles. It's been a few months since the 'education is a conspiracy of the godless' line come up. Good to see it back again, declaring that black is white and up is down.

> Evolutionism relies on peer-pressure, world-view and indifference just as
> much as on active knobbling of Creationists. Thankfully, the conspiracy is
> not all powerful - yet. But it is fairly effective, in gagging the vunerable
> and propagandising the masses.

This is brilliant, just pure brilliant!

Perhaps, as a religious person, you could tell us nasty evil scientists how to "propagandise the masses", so that we could get evolution up into the 75%-95% bracket where belief in creationism lives?

Actually, scratch that. I've just remember that we scientists don't have masses. That's you guys. Anyway, do let us know how to propagandise more effectively. Darn, just remembered that the word "propaganda" comes from the name of Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide aka Propaganda College. And that's another religious word related to indoctrination. Yikes! That's another one: "in-doctrine-ation" itself. Religion really was first with all the vocab for how to screw with peoples' brains!

Anyhow, do tell us all how after 150 years of constant effort by the "elite", a result of 5%-25% belief in something is somehow "effective"?

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

When they study in university. When their professors ridicule creationism/theism, or even mark down those who continue to hold to creationism.

When they become such indoctrinators, or administrators who discriminate against creationists.

None of my lecturers/profs have ever remotely come close to mentioning creationism... they don't care.

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

None of my lecturers/profs have ever remotely come close to mentioning creationism... they don't care.

It was mentioned briefly somewhere near the beginning of the Geology BSc. Partly 'history of geology', partly an introduction to geological time. Nothing after that.

I suppose that the Creationists will therefore claim it was 'ridiculed by being left out' - or whatever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Ummm, I'm might be missing something but how is this any different that science "oppressing" the theory that Thor lives in storm clouds and causes the lightning to take place.

That isn't acceptable in most universities, but I'm not sure the phrase oppression of fresh ideas, nor would people get much support if such an answer was marked down on meteorology test.

Student - Umm, professor, I got an F on that test? What did I do wrong

Prof - Well Timmy you stated that lighting wasn't a product of the static electricity produced by rain droplets rubbing together, but was actually the product of Thor's mighty hammer, striking down those who had made him angry. I am afraid that was the wrong answer.

Student - Don't oppress me!

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Ummm, I'm might be missing something but how is this any different that science oppressing the theory that Thor lives in storm clouds and causes the lightning to take place.

That isn't acceptable in most universities, but I'm not sure the phrase oppresion of fresh ideas, nor would people get much support if such an answer was marked down on meterology test.

Student - Umm, professor, I got an F on that test? What did I do wrong

Prof - Well Timmy you stated that lighting wasn't a product of the static electricity produced by rain droplest rubbing together, but was actually the product of Thor's mighty hammer, striking down those who had made him angry. That was the wrong answer.

Student - Don't oppress me!

Clearly, cultural relativism is as bad as Christians make it out to be...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

It was mentioned briefly somewhere near the beginning of the Geology BSc. Partly 'history of geology', partly an introduction to geological time. Nothing after that.

I suppose that the Creationists will therefore claim it was 'ridiculed by being left out' - or whatever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I suppose the only place it could have come up in my lectures was final year cosmology... but it didn't.

Ummm, I'm might be missing something but how is this any different that science "oppressing" the theory that Thor lives in storm clouds and causes the lightning to take place.

The creationists just aren't feeling persecuted, special, or righteous enough yet.
maybe they just need more hugs.

Zombrex

Anyone see the Creationists on Newsnight. The usual newsnight fluff piece, I don't think Paxman was taking it seriously. He gave the Creationist a good grilling over what is the "intelligence" in Intelligent Design. It was amusing to watch the Creationists refuse to answer the question (Paxman did his patented "I'm sorry but that isn't answering the question.." routen). Its funny, how many ID supporters think the Intelligence isn't their god :rolleyes:

The scientist came across good as well, he seemed to find the whole thing ridiculous and bizare.

It is slightly worrying that this Creationism is moving into mainstream European schools. This crowd sent "information packs" to all secondary schools in Britian, and some have descided to take them on, despite the Dept of Education stating that evolution should be taught in schools.

I hope this crap doesn't spread to Ireland, but I would wonder if it did how it would be recieved?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

It is slightly worrying that this Creationism is moving into mainstream European schools. This crowd sent "information packs" to all secondary schools in Britian, and some have descided to take them on, despite the Dept of Education stating that evolution should be taught in schools.

I hope this crap doesn't spread to Ireland, but I would wonder if it did how it would be recieved?

A little too well, I fear...
I wouldn't say it would be half as bad as in America though...

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

A little too well, I fear...
I wouldn't say it would be half as bad as in America though...

Did not hear the radio interview myself but the thread discussing this on the Irish Skeptics forum says that the same crowd where on NewsTalk a few days ago complaining that Irish schools were not taking their information packs.

Like most Creationists they say this as an example of "mainstream science" oppressing their legitamate viewpoint and concerns about evolution. Me on the other hand would put it down as a victory for common sense

wolfsbane

Friends, it's hard to believe it's that time of the year again, but I'm going to have to wind-up my postings this week, until the holidays. I was expecting our Christmas pressure shifts to start the end of next week but we have a big problem right now. I hope to reply to a few key points, but forgive me if I have to leave the rest. I did not intend anyway to cover old ground again.

After Sat. 2nd December I will only pop in to check on my PMs, so if you need to contact me please use that.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Eh, but Professors, eh, don't ridicule Creationism or Theism. It never comes up.
What do you think happens in lectures?

Maybe you have lived a sheltered life, or maybe creationism/theism is so marginal in your society that it attracts no hostility. I've had many witness reports of such ridicule by lecturers.

Is it:
Professor:And Silicon Dioxide being the main chemical in quartz...
Student: Sorry professor, but what do you think of God? I know this has absolutely nothing to do with what you were just talking about.
Professor: God? God is for weirdoes with no lives.

No, more like:
Professor: Isn't science - especially our branch of it - marvelous! [Then insert here any of the scientific arguments posted on this thread that claim to show that evolution is the proven way all we see today came about, and that the idea of a mature creation as once taught by the Christian Church is utterly debinked]. There now, what enlightened beings you and I are! How far we have come from the old superstitions!
Student: Don't you think your claims about these scientifc theories take more on faith than actual evidence? [Insert here any of the creationists rebuttals of evolution as established fact].
Professor: How dare you suggest science is wrong. Your arguments only have the appearance of science but are religious propaganda. The whole scientific world would laugh at us if I permitted such theories to be discussed. If you even suggest a doubt about evolution in your assignments, expect to be marked down. (The last sentence may not be publically uttered, but the results will be the same).

As for the marking down, usually the Professors just go all out and brand the students with "Creationist" on their record so that they fail everything by default.

They may or may not be so bold. The results are the same. I have first-hand experience of that (from the liberal arts, rather than science), in which the lecturer repeatedly failed a student on the basis of her holding to a belief in an early date (and therefore divine origin) of Daniel's prophecies. It was not good enough for her to repeat back the liberal theory and to critique it, she had to say it was the only true understanding.

Seriously man, come on, this is stupid.

No, it's seriously fascist for academics to enforce dogma in the name of science. If they want to enforce dogma, then admit they are peddling a religion.

Zombrex

Wolfsbane do you think it would "fascist" for a student studying to become a meteorologist to have a exam marked as being incorrect if she stated that Thor, the God of thunder and lightning, by swinging his mighty hammer inside a rain cloud, was the actual reason that lightning was produced, and that the modern theory of how it is produced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning) is based on junk science, unfounded interpretations and kept alive by the anti-Viking scientific establishment.

Would that be the fascists scientific community oppressing alternative viewpoints and theories?

Son Goku

No, it's seriously fascist for academics to enforce dogma in the name of science. If they want to enforce dogma, then admit they are peddling a religion.

Sorry, but what you're suggesting is completely made up and also stupid. There isn't a conspiracy, please get an adult arguement.

(I can neither confirm nor deny that femi-nazis forced me at gun-point to write this.)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Maybe you have lived a sheltered life, or maybe creationism/theism is so marginal in your society that it attracts no hostility. I've had many witness reports of such ridicule by lecturers.

Are you saying that we've all led sheltered lives? Also, that all our friends and acquaintances (and relatives) have led sheltered lives? It's hard to reconcile my experience of 3 universities and multiple science courses with your hearsay - and I have studied in the branches most closely affected by Creationism.

Every year, at UCD, there was a Creationist roadshow for a couple of dates, where they came and argued for Creationism in one of the lecture theatres - anyone could go along and agree/heckle. That's the only time I ever heard Creationism being ridiculed in a lecture theatre, though.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, more like:
Professor: Isn't science - especially our branch of it - marvelous! [Then insert here any of the scientific arguments posted on this thread that claim to show that evolution is the proven way all we see today came about, and that the idea of a mature creation as once taught by the Christian Church is utterly debinked]. There now, what enlightened beings you and I are! How far we have come from the old superstitions!
Student: Don't you think your claims about these scientifc theories take more on faith than actual evidence? [Insert here any of the creationists rebuttals of evolution as established fact].
Professor: How dare you suggest science is wrong. Your arguments only have the appearance of science but are religious propaganda. The whole scientific world would laugh at us if I permitted such theories to be discussed. If you even suggest a doubt about evolution in your assignments, expect to be marked down. (The last sentence may not be publically uttered, but the results will be the same).

Come off it, wolfsbane - that's a Jack Chick tract quotation, more or less. I've never heard anything so ridiculous said in a science lecture, and more to the point - neither have you.

Seriously, you believe this happens because you want to believe it happens. And there's no point in saying the reverse is true of me, because you can see I'd hardly let such an argument go by without jumping in.

wolfsbane wrote:

They may or may not be so bold. The results are the same. I have first-hand experience of that (from the liberal arts, rather than science), in which the lecturer repeatedly failed a student on the basis of her holding to a belief in an early date (and therefore divine origin) of Daniel's prophecies. It was not good enough for her to repeat back the liberal theory and to critique it, she had to say it was the only true understanding.

Sure. That's what happens in the Arts. Lecturers fail people for disagreeing with their politics, or their weird personal conclusions, and all kinds of rubbish - that's why it's not Science. There's a huge difference, which you appear not to realise.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, it's seriously fascist for academics to enforce dogma in the name of science. If they want to enforce dogma, then admit they are peddling a religion.

It would be, but it really doesn't happen as you think it does. It certainly happens in the Arts - whole schools spring up which will accept only Marxist views on History, or Economics, and anyone who disagrees will never pass their first year.

That's what makes Arts Arts - there is nothing behind any of it but personal opinion. There are no experiments, no real observations, just a mass of interpretation and theory.

It certainly explains why you think such a thing is possible, but it doesn't make it the truth. Sorry, but you're entirely wrong. Try asking outside the Arts - sheltered existence that it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

No conspiracy at all. It is just a prevailing attitude of University profs, that if you are a Christian you are dumb and you're opinions are therefore deemed invalid.

Now I've seen where wolfsbane's coming from - are you also talking about Arts rather than Science?

Also, is that specifically Canada, or the US?

All of my lecturers (bar one) in UCD Geology, were Christians. There are very very few lecturers in any Irish university who aren't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Hi folks -

The Irish Skeptics have organized a public talk next Wednesday evening on the topic of creationism. The details are as follows:

Title: Creatures of Accident

Given by Professor Wallace Arthur, Dept. of Zoology, NUI Galway on the launch of his book of the same title. The talk will be given in the Yeats Room, Mont Clare Hotel, Merrion Square, Dublin 2 at 8pm, Wednesday, December 6, 2006.

"The Intelligent Design movement postulates that the complexity of living creatures is 'irreducible'. That is, it is not explicable by reference only to natural processes and must, instead, be designed. Unlike more old-fashioned creationists, however, the design need not have taken a mere 6 days, but rather could have taken 3 or 4 billion years. In other words, evolution is accepted, but it is guided, or micro-managed, by a supreme being in order to ensure that it ends up producing humans. 'Creatures of Accident' argues against this view by explaining how a natural evolutionary process can lead not just to diversification within a level of complexity, as in many famous case studies like Darwin's finches, but also to rises in complexity, which have led all the way from a world containing only single-celled creatures, to one containing creatures like humans, composed of many trillions of cells."

Wallace Arthur is Professor of Zoology at NUI Galway. He is the author of a number of books including Biased Embryos and Evolution. His latest book, Creatures of Accident: The Rise of the Animal Kingdom was published in September. His particular area of interest is the evolution of development, or evo-devo as it is often termed.

Admission, as usual, is €3 for members, €6 for non-members

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Now I've seen where wolfsbane's coming from - are you also talking about Arts rather than Science?

Also, is that specifically Canada, or the US?

All of my lecturers (bar one) in UCD Geology, were Christians. There are very very few lecturers in any Irish university who aren't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Actually Scofflaw I deleted that message you quoted from. You got to it in the 3 minutes it took me to delete it.

I deleted it because I realized I was operating on hearsay evidence, and couldn't back up my statements with solid facts, only what others had told me.

Accept my retraction and apologies.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Actually Scofflaw I deleted that message you quoted from. You got to it in the 3 minutes it took me to delete it.

I deleted it because I realized I was operating on hearsay evidence, and couldn't back up my statements with solid facts, only what others had told me.

Accept my retraction and apologies.

Entirely accepted, of course! Sorry to be so quick off the mark, but then I didn't know you were going to delete it....and sometimes the refresh is so weird that I wouldn't be sure anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Bonkey
Just because you believe something doesn't make it scientifically more credible. Just because your idea is more popular than someone else's doesn't make it scientifically more credible. Science is not a democracy, nor is it a popularity contest.

When dealing with mainstream-challenging concepts, there is a simple procedure to follow. It starts with "show me the evidence". That evidence will need to be of admissible quality - so double-blinded tests are ok, whereas opinions of your fellow believers are not. Methodology, samples, etc. will all be scrutinised to see whether or not you've met the burden of proof.

No problem with any of the above.

However, could I gently remind you that the theory of macro Evolution DOESN’T meet these standards – but Creation Scientists DO operate to the above burdens of forensic proof.:D


bonkey
in one of the latest cases in the US discussing whether or not ID should be allowed into the science classroom, the pro-ID argument basically was that the definition of science was no longer appropriate and needed to be refined.

There is absolutely no need to redefine forensic science to include ID or Creation Science.

Practically all of the ‘Fathers of Modern Science’ were Creationists – and so ‘modern science’ was actually ‘founded’ as Creation Science.

The ONLY people currently redefining science (to exclude the EVIDENCE for Creation) are Evolutionists!!!!:D


Scofflaw
A. Scientific Observation: that the human genome differs between individuals by up to 12% by virtue of random duplication, shuffling, and deletion of multiple copies of genes.

B. Creationist Claim: that the human genome is 'tightly specified' - so tightly specified that if just one part is missing or in the wrong place the genome will be useless

Of course there is genetic variation between individual Human Beings – but this variation IS always within tight constraints – a Human Being is always a Human Being and an Oak Tree is always an Oak Tree.

The apparent paradox is illustrated by the following analogy.
There are considerable SUPERFICIAL colour and shape differences between different car models – but the ‘basics’ of each car, such as wheels, brakes, gears, steering, etc are tightly specified – so tightly specified that if just one part is missing or in the wrong place the car will be functionally useless!!!

There are about 3 billion base pairs in the Human Genome and their critical sequences ARE indeed observed to be tightly specified.
For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.


Wolfsbane
they end up with an 'evolution with problems' model, just like the creationists end up with a 'creation with problems' model.

The only thing I would add, is that Evolution has large, fundamental problems that haven’t been solved despite huge resources being devoted to answering them…………..
………..whereas the unanswered questions of Creation Science are minor and tangential in nature and they are largely due to the extremely limited resources available to Creation Scientists to carry out the necessary research work to answer them.:D :cool:


Wicknight
Evolution pretty much removes man's special place in the universe, that religion had maintained for thousands of years. It states that we are simply an animal (not that there is much "simple" about it), evolved from other animals, a result of a staggering and wondrous series of chemical reactions over a period of 4 billion years.
Why you think anyone would choose to lie about that, to pick that as the lie, is beyond me.

Evolution does indeed remove Man's special place in the Universe - and it therefore undermines the fundamental basis of the Judeo-Christian Religions.

The originators of Evolutionary ideas are heavily committed to an atheist worldview.

However:-

1. There isn’t a shred of evidence that macro-Evolution occurred!!!

2. The theory breaks down under scientific scrutiny, and it is in conflict with almost every known Law of Science and Logic!!!!


Robin
Perhaps, as a religious person, you could tell us nasty evil scientists how to "propagandise the masses", so that we could get evolution up into the 75%-95% bracket where belief in creationism lives?

As a scientist, I can confirm that scientists are neither nasty nor evil – and the evolutionist ones are simply mistaken.:eek:

People hunger for the TRUTH.
The TRUTH always comes out eventually and sets us free – and that is why up to 95% of people are Creationists !!!:eek:


Robin
Anyhow, do tell us all how after 150 years of constant effort by the "elite", a result of 5%-25% belief in something is somehow "effective"?

Pushing water up a hill with a brush can be a very demoralising business!!!

………..and isn't it amazing proof of the existence of our living God, that less than 5% of people REALLY believe in macro-Evolution, despite ‘wall to wall’ promotion of Evolution for over 100 years?


Bluewolf
The creationists just aren't feeling persecuted, special, or righteous enough yet.
maybe they just need more hugs.

Everyone likes a hug………….and I also send hugs and good wishes to you all!!!!:)


Wicknight
Anyone see the Creationists on Newsnight.

Firstly ‘Truth in Science’ ISN’T a Creationist Organisation – they are ID Proponents – and for anybody who wishes to inform themselves about the ID Position, the following article by Peter Hitchens provides a reasonably good summary (from an ID point of view):-

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/11/fanatics_in_the.html


The debate on Newsnight is here:-
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/206/63/


The feedback from science teachers is very positive:-
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/194/63/

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/202/63/


The (lack of) evidence for Evolution is discussed here:-
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/category/18/52/65/

Fallen Seraph

J C wrote:

The ONLY people currently redefining science (to exclude the EVIDENCE for Creation) are Evolutionists!!!!:D

I'd cite this as evidence of creationists trying to redefine science:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

Got anything comparable for the evolutionists?

J C

Wicknight
Did not hear the radio interview myself but the thread discussing this on the Irish Skeptics forum says that the same crowd (Truth in Science) where on NewsTalk a few days ago

So the Skeptics Forum has started discussing Evolution again!!!!:D

Last time I was on the Skeptics Forum they ‘stormed off’ and summarily shut down THREE threads on the topic – because I had comprehensively ‘roasted’ Evolution. :eek:

The following was said by the Skeptics Moderator as he shut down the last thread on the topic of Evolution v Creation:-

“So, this discussion is closed again. And if anyone tries to reopen it on another thread I'll regard that as an attempt to troll and ban them.

And don't complain that I'm shutting down free speech. If you can't make your point within 300 posts, tough.”

Perhaps the Skeptics should take their ‘Mods’ advice, and not start discussing Evolution again - because somebody like me might just come along and destroy their faith, in their descent from “pond scum” or their unfounded belief that they are a “monkey’s cousin”!!!!!:eek:

Why are Skeptics sceptical of every idea EXCEPT the idea with the LEAST amount of evidence supporting it – Evolution???

Skeptics should simply call themselves Evolutionists and leave the scepticism to people who are TRULY sceptical – like the Creationists !!!!!:eek:


Robin
The Irish Skeptics have organized a public talk next Wednesday evening on the topic of creationism.

So, the Skeptics idea of ‘a talk on Creationism’ – is to have an Evolutionist talk about Evolution!!!:D

Is that sceptical or what??!!!


Fallen Seraph
I'd cite this as evidence of creationists trying to redefine science:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

…and I would cite it as evidence of Evolutionists trying to redefine ID !!!!

It is actually macro-Evolution and Astrology that suffer from a lack of supporting objective scientific evidence.
...........although, I suppose, if you believe that you are ‘stardust’ as the late Carl Sagan used to describe himself - then a belief that the movement of the stars will determine your destiny could indeed have a compelling attraction!!!


Quote Peter Hitchens in The Mail on Sunday
“The evolutionists trumpet and bellow about this small, modest challenge (from Intelligent Design), like an enormous elephant panicking over the presence of a mouse. I wonder why?”

Sounds like an apt description of this thread at times – with up to 50 Evolutionist scientists ’bellowing’ at little old me !!!!

……..anybody for cheese???!!!

Squeak, squeak!!!!:D