The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ciaran500

iUseVi wrote: »

Thousands? Don't make me laugh. Show me half a thousand please. And dead ones don't count.

A good example of these lists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Or at the very least, an untestable assumption.

My biggest beef is that there's still no motive for scientists on a community-wide scale to claim that the Earth is older than it appears. The creationists have a very clear motive for disputing the obvious.

The unforgivable sin for the atheist would be giving credence to the Genesis account - which a young earth certainly would. It would both fit the Genesis account and rule out evolution. What blasphemy! The erring scientist could expect to be tied to his laboratory door and dispatched with Bunsen-burners - Well, be ostracised and lose his job at least.:D

wolfsbane

Ciaran500 wrote: »

A good example of these lists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

Not a good example. The DI is an Intelligent Design organisation, not a creationist one. IDers have no problem with evolution as such.

As to the quality of the investigator, I have some doubts about that too. For example, he claims Dr David A. DeWitt was listed as employed by Case Western Reserve University. In the bio. published by AiG, it merely states he got his PhD there:
Dr David DeWitt
Creationist Biochemist and Neuroscientist
(USA)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_dewitt.asp

Creationist scientist lists can be found at:
The ICR Scientists
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/163/

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest*
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983

There are other creationist scientists who are not Christian, but you will have to look them up for yourself.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

The unforgivable sin for the atheist would be giving credence to the Genesis account - which a young earth certainly would. It would both fit the Genesis account and rule out evolution. What blasphemy! The erring scientist could expect to be tied to his laboratory door and dispatched with Bunsen-burners - Well, be ostracised and lose his job at least.:D

So are you talking about scientists or atheists? Because they are not the same thing

More to the point what exactly would an evolutionary biologist be using a bunsen burner for, unless the kettle is broken. I am pretty sure that chemists would still have a job even if the earth was 6000 years old.

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not a good example. The DI is an Intelligent Design organisation, not a creationist one. IDers have no problem with evolution as such.

ID'ers do have a problem with evolution, they say everything was designed by God and didn't evolve.

wolfsbane

iUseVi said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes. The humanist was deploring the skepticism shown towards evolutionary theory by the lefties. Am I mistaken?
Umm lefties? Not sure about that, but apart from that basically, yeah.
Not sure how that really supports your position though.

Let the humanist speak for himself:
Are the people at SSHRC fundamentalists? This is unlikely, although some have suggested that SSHRC, a federal government agency, may be acting under the influence of Canada's current right-wing government. More likely, I think, is that this large public agency is in thrall to certain trendy ideas in the social sciences and humanities. There clearly is a large postmodernist contingent in those circles in Canada, as in the United States, which holds that science is an ideology no better and probably worse than other ways of knowing.

One insightful columnist in Canada, in reporting on the SSHRC affair, referred to an "unholy alliance" between the academic left and the religious right. My guess is that something like this is happening at SSHRC, which unfortunately remains firmly in control of research funds for science education in Canada.

I didn't post it to support creationism - just to poke at bit of fun at skeptics who don't like skepticism directed at themselves.:D

wolfsbane

marco_polo said:

So are you talking about scientists or atheists? Because they are not the same thing

Correct - as the many creationist scientists attest. It is the atheist scientists who would cause big trouble for any colleage who 'proved' the earth was young.

More to the point what exactly would an evolutionary biologist be using a bunsen burner for, unless the kettle is broken.

Evolutionary biologists are not the only atheist scientists who have a stake in the matter.

I am pretty sure that chemists would still have a job even if the earth was 6000 years old.

Indeed they would - but the atheists among them would be none too pleased. You see, it would be atheism being overthrown, not science.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The thousands of scientists who are creationists disagree with you.

As someone else pointed out there aren't thousands, AiG lists just under 200.

And the ones who are actually biologists currently working in the field of biology are only a small subset of those

Of course lists like this don't actually matter, as satirically pointed out by "Project Steve" of the National Centre for Science Education.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You should practise a bit more skepticism.

You shouldn't put any weight in lists (particularly when the list of the other side is thousands of times bigger than your own list :rolleyes:)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You see, it would be atheism being overthrown, not science.

We are back the "atheists under the bed" tactic I see ... run for the hills the great atheist conspiracy is censoring our children!

didn't we grow out of this about 200 pages ago ... I really expected better of you Wolfsbane? Did you not follow any of the discussion on the nature of science and scientific models?

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

marco_polo said:

Correct - as the many creationist scientists attest. It is the atheist scientists who would cause big trouble for any colleage who 'proved' the earth was young.


Evolutionary biologists are not the only atheist scientists who have a stake in the matter.


Indeed they would - but the atheists among them would be none too pleased. You see, it would be atheism being overthrown, not science.

And what about the sizable proportion of scientists (I guess the majority if you include all the science fields) who are neither creationist or atheist. What is their motivation for going along with the big athiest conspiracy?

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct - as the many creationist scientists attest. It is the atheist scientists who would cause big trouble for any colleage who 'proved' the earth was young.

Any scientist would cause "big trouble" for someone who proved the young earth, it goes against everything we accept now and would require extraordinary proof. I'm pretty sure this has been explained before.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolutionary biologists are not the only atheist scientists who have a stake in the matter.

Don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution or the earth is billions of years old. Will I try dig up a list to show that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed they would - but the atheists among them would be none too pleased. You see, it would be atheism being overthrown, not science.

By that logic proving the earth is 6000 years old proves god exists, proving its much older (as we can now) prove god doesn't exist?

wolfsbane

Ciaran500 wrote: »

ID'ers do have a problem with evolution, they say everything was designed by God and didn't evolve.

That's not my undersatnding of ID, nor, for example, AiG's:
The informal leadership of the IDM has more or less come to rest on Phillip Johnson, a distinguished retired (emeritus) Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley who is a Presbyterian. Philosophically and theologically, the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group. For example, Dr Jonathan Wells is not only a scientist but also an ordained cleric in the Unification Church (the ‘Moonie’ sect) and Dr Michael Denton is a former agnostic anti-evolutionist (with respect to biological transformism), who now professes a vague form of theism. However, he now seems to have embraced evolutionary (though somehow ‘guided’) transformism. Dr Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, is a Roman Catholic who says he has no problem with the idea that all organisms, including man, descended from a common ancestor....
The major focus of their attacks is not evolution as such, but ‘chance’ evolution, i.e., the naturalistic philosophy (there is no supernatural; matter is all there is) behind it.

Anyone opposed to naturalism could potentially qualify as an ally. This includes believers in evolution from microbe to man, so long as this belief were to involve some intelligent, planned interference sometime during the billions of years.

They generally believe in, or are publicly neutral on, the millions and billions of years that evolutionists teach and accept.

They either are comfortable with, or express no public view on, the corollary implication of long-age belief, namely that millions of years of death, disease and suffering took place before mankind appeared.

AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp

Ciaran500

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

No natural selection, no evolution.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's not my undersatnding of ID, nor, for example, AiG's:
The informal leadership of the IDM has more or less come to rest on Phillip Johnson, a distinguished retired (emeritus) Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley who is a Presbyterian. Philosophically and theologically, the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group. For example, Dr Jonathan Wells is not only a scientist but also an ordained cleric in the Unification Church (the ‘Moonie’ sect) and Dr Michael Denton is a former agnostic anti-evolutionist (with respect to biological transformism), who now professes a vague form of theism. However, he now seems to have embraced evolutionary (though somehow ‘guided’) transformism. Dr Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, is a Roman Catholic who says he has no problem with the idea that all organisms, including man, descended from a common ancestor....
The major focus of their attacks is not evolution as such, but ‘chance’ evolution, i.e., the naturalistic philosophy (there is no supernatural; matter is all there is) behind it.

Anyone opposed to naturalism could potentially qualify as an ally. This includes believers in evolution from microbe to man, so long as this belief were to involve some intelligent, planned interference sometime during the billions of years.

They generally believe in, or are publicly neutral on, the millions and billions of years that evolutionists teach and accept.

They either are comfortable with, or express no public view on, the corollary implication of long-age belief, namely that millions of years of death, disease and suffering took place before mankind appeared.

AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp

Thats looks like a pretty big problem with evolution to me.

Galvasean

marco_polo wrote: »

And what about the sizable proportion of scientists (I guess the majority if you include all the science fields) who are neither creationist or atheist. What is their motivation for going along with the big atheist conspiracy?

Good point. The way this thread is going you'd swear everyone had to be either atheist or creationist. All the Christians I know accept old Earth logic and believe in evolution.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

We are back the "atheists under the bed" tactic I see ... run for the hills the great atheist conspiracy is censoring our children!

didn't we grow out of this about 200 pages ago ... I really expected better of you Wolfsbane? Did you not follow any of the discussion on the nature of science and scientific models?

Are you claiming most scientists aren't atheists? Or that if they are, their worldview would not influence their reaction to a colleague making a strong case for a young earth?

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

Thats looks like a pretty big problem with evolution to me.

How so?

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are you claiming most scientists aren't atheists? Or that if they are, their worldview would not influence their reaction to a colleague making a strong case for a young earth?

Actually I believe a hefty proportion are religious. They mostly just don't believe in young Earth theory.

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are you claiming most scientists aren't atheists? Or that if they are, their worldview would not influence their reaction to a colleague making a strong case for a young earth?

Are you claiming most scientists are atheists?

You seem to think if you don't believe in Creationism then you don't believe in religion.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

marco_polo said:

Correct - as the many creationist scientists attest. It is the atheist scientists who would cause big trouble for any colleage who 'proved' the earth was young.


Evolutionary biologists are not the only atheist scientists who have a stake in the matter.


Indeed they would - but the atheists among them would be none too pleased. You see, it would be atheism being overthrown, not science.

Ah yes, and then our evil plans for the New World Order would be foiled. Gotta go and eat some babies and burn some churches....

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The unforgivable sin for the atheist would be giving credence to the Genesis account - which a young earth certainly would. It would both fit the Genesis account and rule out evolution.

That's not a motive. Why would a scientist need or want to discredit Genesis? Evolution wasn't cooked up just to make the bible look bad- Darwin had no motive to do such a thing and neither had the vast majority of his supporters over the last 150 years, most of whom would have been theists.

Many parts of the bible do not fly in the face of current scientific thinking, so it's not as if there is an overt bias or agenda against the book- it's not as if we simply ignore facts which support it. There are for example, many historical figures, places and events in the bible that are supported by scientific research. Science merely assumes initially that nothing is true until proven and has thus shown that parts of the bible are literally true and that other parts are at best metaphorical.

wolfsbane

Ciaran500 wrote: »

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

No natural selection, no evolution.

If God gave the punctuation to the equilibrium, wouldn't Stephen Gould find it hard to tell the difference? I don't think the evolutionary IDers are denying NS, just making it a subservient part of the theistic evolutionary process.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

How so?

Well for one whatever it is that they are describing is not evolution.

Galvasean

Does God guide evolution from time to time? Who knows.

There. Now we happy.

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

If God gave the punctuation to the equilibrium, wouldn't Stephen Gould find it hard to tell the difference? I don't think the evolutionary IDers are denying NS, just making it a subservient part of the theistic evolutionary process.

They don't believe that random mutations and natural selection made us what we are today. Surely at this stage you know this is the central idea of evolution.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

You really should research outside of creationist sites once in a while.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Does God guide evolution from time to time? Who knows.

By definition untestable by science. And around we go again.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's not a motive. Why would a scientist need or want to discredit Genesis? Evolution wasn't cooked up just to make the bible look bad- Darwin had no motive to do such a thing and neither had the vast majority of his supporters over the last 150 years, most of whom would have been theists.

Many parts of the bible do not fly in the face of current scientific thinking, so it's not as if there is an overt bias or agenda against the book- it's not as if we simply ignore facts which support it. There are for example, many historical figures, places and events in the bible that are supported by scientific research. Science merely assumes initially that nothing is true until proven and has thus shown that parts of the bible are literally true and that other parts are at best metaphorical.

Impartial scientists would not need or want to discredit Genesis. But those biased against God - the atheists - have the motive. Sadly, many theists have gone with the flow, rather than stand against all the ridicule heaped on non-materialist explanations of origins.

As for Darwin and his descendants, here's an informative article:
A Darwinian View of a Hostile Atheist
http://www.csicop.org:80/si/2008-01/tessman.html

marco_polo

Galvasean wrote: »

Does God guide evolution from time to time? Who knows.

There. Now we happy.

We'll never get to 20,000 posts with an attitude like that

The key point is that evolution works just fine without the presence of God. ID proponents inserting him into the theory because they dislike his absence is clearly not science.

And since it Evolution isn't going towards any particular goal, it doesn't need a guide.

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

Impartial scientists would not need or want to discredit Genesis. But those biased against God - the atheists - have the motive. Sadly, many theists have gone with the flow, rather than stand against all the ridicule heaped on non-materialist explanations of origins.

As for Darwin and his descendants, here's an informative article:
A Darwinian View of a Hostile Atheist
http://www.csicop.org:80/si/2008-01/tessman.html

Where did you think this ****e up from.

Why can't you accept some religious people have made an objective decision that they think creationism is wrong. There no big conspiracy, you're starting to sound like Stein now.

wolfsbane

Ciaran500 wrote: »

They don't believe that random mutations and natural selection made us what we are today. Surely at this stage you know this is the central idea of evolution.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

You really should research outside of creationist sites once in a while.

I'm just pointing out that they are not creationists, any more than theistic evolutionists are. They hold to a theistically-directed millions-of-years gradual development of the biosphere. If you want to prohibit them calling that evolution, that's between them and you. It certainly is not creationism.