The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

We only see people as being 'skeptical' if they are skeptical about the same things as us.

That isn't true

I view someone as skeptical if they are skeptical about all things, including their own reasoning and beliefs.

I know plenty of people who I would consider very skeptical people, but who have positions and conclusions I don't agree with.

There is a difference between being skeptical, and being skeptical against anything that doesn't suit or support an agenda, while not being skeptical of the agenda itself.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

We only see people as being 'skeptical' if they are skeptical about the same things as us. [...] That's human nature, sadly.

It's far more common to misunderstand the nature of skepticism and to conflate it with distrust, disbelief or an easy, useless (and frequently public) cynicism.

Here's my more careful definition of skepticism. Corrections and suggestions welcome.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems to me a qualitative assessment. Creation is a subject of ridicule because it is assumed to have been proven wrong; contraception is considered a moral issue, even by those who accept it, and as such not an obvious denial of reality. It's not like the pope was saying the sperm is a baby or something else known to be wrong.

The RCC can retain a lot of its credibility by holding a moral position (even if it is mistaken). That's what people expect of religions. It is even admired by many for its refusal to compromise.

If one believes the scientists with regard to contraception, it is immoral for the church to ban the use of contraception. Promotion of condoms protects against the transmission of HIV and other STDs better than does the promotion of an abstinence policy. That is reality. So the church is either acting immorally or denying reality.

There's clearly enough uncertainty in the science for them to be able to continue promoting their dogma with regard to contraception. So why can't they still do that with evolution? The science is too solid.

And I should say that by every measurement we've made to date, creationism has been falsified. If it were ever a valid hypothesis, it has been falsified countless observations many disparate areas of science.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If one believes the scientists with regard to contraception, it is immoral for the church to ban the use of contraception. Promotion of condoms protects against the transmission of HIV and other STDs better than does the promotion of an abstinence policy. That is reality. So the church is either acting immorally or denying reality.

I don't agree with the Catholic Church's policy on condoms - but I don't think your argument is sound.

Castrating every male in Africa would be far more effective in stopping the transmission of HIV than the use of condoms. However, that does not mean that we are immoral if we resist such a policy.

Anyway, it is not an either/or situation in regards to abstinence and condoms. An ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, wear a Condom) approach is reasonable and works well.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

I don't agree with the Catholic Church's policy on condoms - but I don't think your argument is sound.

Castrating every male in Africa would be far more effective in stopping the transmission of HIV than the use of condoms. However, that does not mean that we are immoral if we resist such a policy.

I think I take the point that you are making. The Catholic Church considers the use of condoms to be in some manner harmful. Both condom usage and castration are arguably less harmful than contracting HIV and we could potentially make a similar "greater good" argument in favour of both. The Catholic Church would resist both, viewing them as harmful, and thus remain moral.

The problem I have is that castration is quite self-evidently harmful whereas the vast bulk of scientific evidence shows that condom usage is not harmful. Our understanding of human reproduction and in particular sperm cells gives us no cause for concern. Knowing that condoms are not harmful, I would maintain that the church are thus either being immoral or are ignorant of the data. The uncertainty in science regarding exact definitions of life and our inability to measure the "sacredness" that Catholics ascribe to sperm cells and to the act of intercourse gives the Church an out. They can continue to oppose the scientists position despite much more significant criticism than they ever received in relation to Creation. The science isn't convincing enough to them in this case. Yet it is when it comes to evolution.

PDN wrote: »

Anyway, it is not an either/or situation in regards to abstinence and condoms. An ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, wear a Condom) approach is reasonable and works well.

I agree, perfectly reasonable for a Christian and very much effective. All three points are subject to human weaknesses and cultural quirks of course. They perhaps work best in combination because of this. I was merely pointing out that Catholics will only promote A and B while denouncing C. I would personally promote B and C but I am a wicked Atheist.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I agree, perfectly reasonable for a Christian and very much effective. All three points are subject to human weaknesses and cultural quirks of course. They perhaps work best in combination because of this. I was merely pointing out that Catholics will only promote A and B while denouncing C. I would personally promote B and C but I am a wicked Atheist.

No, you're a moral atheist. If you were an immoral atheist you would only advocate C. Of course if you were a really wicked atheist you would advocate none of them and encourage as many people as possible to contract HIV.

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

In comparison to the other regional broadcasters, Al Jazeera really are quite moderate. They're the CNN of the Persian/Arabian gulf, versus a hundred state-owned or state-controlled channels which have more in common with Fox's approach to fairness and balance.

BTW, the core group who originally staffed Al Jazeera came from an earlier Saudi-linked BBC operation which died because of editorial control issues. Most regional governments detest Al Jazeera and it's been banned in several countries there.

I know, I was just making fun. I've seen some of the more extreme stuff (some of it was on Sky Digital for a while, but got taken off quite quickly, too), and it's quite scary.

AtomicHorror

Anti-reason takes another step forward.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300-new-legal-threat-to-school-science-in-the-us.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926643.300

Protection of "academic freedom" in high schools. It's basically a word-game now written into law which allows a back-door for Intelligent Design to be taught alongside science. The standard policy for second-level science teaching is to stay up to date with mainstream science. Academic freedom is a concept which comes into play at third level and beyond. The right to research freely and to publish freely. It's not relevant to teenagers.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Perhaps you should (again) read up on your history. Throughout the 70s and 80s the Creationism movement tried to get evolution banned from the class room in America. This was struck down as being unconstitutional. They then tried to get Creationism taught beside science. This again was struck down as being unconstitutional. They are now trying to the "Intelligent Design" taught alongside evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As far as I can see, the others were an attempt to have ID taught alongside it as an alternative.
You are right. Perhaps though, if you were as skeptical and non-gullible as you claim you would dig a little bit further into the evolution of the movement you seem happy to throw your full support behind.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/c...egal/bkgrd.htm

Just a quickie for tonight:

The cases you gave me show no examples that the Creationism movement tried to get evolution banned from the class room in America. They show one case of an individual seeking an opt out on teaching evolution, another of an individual seeking to have it banned - they rest were of individuals seeking to introduce evolution or ban creationism.

But perhaps you can point me to specific refs. that the Creationism movement tried to get evolution banned from the class room in America?

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Anti-reason takes another step forward.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300-new-legal-threat-to-school-science-in-the-us.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926643.300

Protection of "academic freedom" in high schools. It's basically a word-game now written into law which allows a back-door for Intelligent Design to be taught alongside science. The standard policy for second-level science teaching is to stay up to date with mainstream science. Academic freedom is a concept which comes into play at third level and beyond. The right to research freely and to publish freely. It's not relevant to teenagers.

America is slowly becoming a theocracy, if it isn't one already.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

America is slowly becoming a theocracy, if it isn't one already.

Similar legislation has been passed and overturned in the past. Fingers crossed. Eternal vigilance and all that jazz...

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Anti-reason takes another step forward.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300-new-legal-threat-to-school-science-in-the-us.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926643.300

Protection of "academic freedom" in high schools. It's basically a word-game now written into law which allows a back-door for Intelligent Design to be taught alongside science. The standard policy for second-level science teaching is to stay up to date with mainstream science. Academic freedom is a concept which comes into play at third level and beyond. The right to research freely and to publish freely. It's not relevant to teenagers.

According to your link the new law reads:

The state... shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment... that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (Section 1B)

So which bit of this is it that you object to? The critical thinking skills? The logical analysis? Or the open and objective discussion?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

According to your link the new law reads:

The state... shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment... that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (Section 1B)

So which bit of this is it that you object to? The critical thinking skills? The logical analysis? Or the open and objective discussion?

Firstly, the law is unspecific as to the nature of the criticism that is acceptable. Scientific analysis of scientific theories is a worthy and indeed essential skill. However this law would allow ID and creationism to be taught in school as if they were legitimate sciences or counter arguments. This is counter to principles of secularism.

Second, I would question whether it is an appropriate part of a high school curriculum, particularly one which is failing its students on more basic levels than this.

Third, entering this into law on the basis of academic freedom is disingenuous. Academic freedom is a concept which applies to research, not teaching.

Fourth, look at the specifically-cited topics in the bill. All of them are Republican/Christian right bullet points. They suggest that these topics are in some manner scientifically controversial. Human cloning is a valid ethical debate. The origins of life are under research and are not controversial. The other two topics have strong scientific consensus.

Finally, there is good reason to believe that the teaching of ID is in fact the motive behind this perplexing and unnecessary law; the governor of Louisiana, who signed this into law, has voiced his approval of teaching ID in schools. When the bill was opposed by a panel of scientists, it was a large and vocal Christian lobby group who defended it. Quotes by the governor and supporters suggest that they believe that a legitimate debate and controversy surrounds evolution.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So which bit of this is it that you object to? The critical thinking skills? The logical analysis? Or the open and objective discussion?

Facetiousness aside, you're clearly quite unfamiliar with the issue of "academic freedom" legislation in the USA and who's behind it, and why.

The legislation is being pushed, almost exclusively, by Republicans and the topics criticized are those that the Republican Party has problems with -- evolution, global warming, stem-cell research, the transmission of STD's and that's about it. The legislation is not there to foster honest debate, but to permit bullshit to be taught openly to kids with the full support of the law, and to protect the people who do this.

Panda's Thumb has regular updates on the development of the DI's Wedge Strategy and the execution of this, its latest strand.

.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The cases you gave me show no examples that the Creationism movement tried to get evolution banned from the class room in America.

Did you read the cases I gave you?

"1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution."

Evolution was banned in Arkansas since 1925. Have you heard of the Scopes trial?

The Creationist movement has tried to have evolution banned. When that failed they tried to have Creationism taught along side evolution. When that failed they tried to have "Intelligent Design" taught along side evolution.

It is nonsense to claim the Creationism movement did not, and is not, trying to influence public policy.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Facetiousness aside, you're clearly quite unfamiliar with the issue of "academic freedom" legislation in the USA and who's behind it, and why.

The legislation is being pushed, almost exclusively, by Republicans and the topics criticized are those that the Republican Party has problems with -- evolution, global warming, stem-cell research, the transmission of STD's and that's about it. The legislation is not there to foster honest debate, but to permit bullshit to be taught openly to kids with the full support of the law, and to protect the people who do this.

Panda's Thumb has regular updates on the development of the DI's Wedge Strategy and the execution of this, its latest strand.

.

Good link. I'd hesitate to say that PDN is "clearly unfamiliar" with anything mind you. The academic freedom angle is something I'd not encountered before myself. It seems par for the course with the anti-science brigade: word games, essentially.

AtomicHorror

A New Scientist journo recently wrote a piece on his visit to a Creationist museum:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/07/trip-to-creation-museum.html

I know, I know, I really link those guys a lot. The creationist's vision of the secular world that is included is a very interesting glimpse into just what it is that they're afraid of. The death of morality.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Firstly, the law is unspecific as to the nature of the criticism that is acceptable. Scientific analysis of scientific theories is a worthy and indeed essential skill. However this law would allow ID and creationism to be taught in school as if they were legitimate sciences or counter arguments. This is counter to principles of secularism.

Second, I would question whether it is an appropriate part of a high school curriculum, particularly one which is failing its students on more basic levels than this.

Third, entering this into law on the basis of academic freedom is disingenuous. Academic freedom is a concept which applies to research, not teaching.

Fourth, look at the specifically-cited topics in the bill. All of them are Republican/Christian right bullet points. They suggest that these topics are in some manner scientifically controversial. Human cloning is a valid ethical debate. The origins of life are under research and are not controversial. The other two topics have strong scientific consensus.

Finally, there is good reason to believe that the teaching of ID is in fact the motive behind this perplexing and unnecessary law; the governor of Louisiana, who signed this into law, has voiced his approval of teaching ID in schools. When the bill was opposed by a panel of scientists, it was a large and vocal Christian lobby group who defended it. Quotes by the governor and supporters suggest that they believe that a legitimate debate and controversy surrounds evolution.

......I think that this thread PROVES that, a legitimate scientific debate and a theological controversy does indeed surround evolution!!!!!!:D

......anyway, your points boil down to :-

Evolutionist Speculation---- GOOD!!!

Creation Science

---

NOT GOOD!!!

......and you would say that.....wouldn't you!!!!!:eek::)

Basically the Materialists and assorted Atheists want to 'induct' EVERY child into their religious worldview ..... and Spontaneous Evolution is THE key tenet of this viewpoint......
.....in this regard, could I point out that Creationists accept that Natural Selection and genetic drift does occur........so (micro) 'evolution' ISN'T contested......it is the unfounded belief that some kind of 'primordial soup' spontaneously evolved into Man........while breaking all of the known laws of logic and science, in the process, that is being contested.....
......and, wherever the Materialists are in a position to do so, they will NOT allow alternative religious views to their own Atheistic viewpoint to be presented.....and they deftly do so, by claiming scientific validity for their worldview......when it is just another FAITH....
.....and a faith that actually has considerbly less objective evidential and logical support than Creation Science!!!!:D:)

.....and BTW the Materialists are just as hostile to ID Evolutionists (if not even more so) than they are to Creationists.......so we can conclude from this that Evolution / long ages (which is accepted by many ID Evolutionists) ISN'T the key issue......
.....it is God and His mighty works, that they actually want kept out of all educational institutions ......and some have frankly admitted, that they are not prepared to allow a 'Divine foot' inside the doors of the institutions that they control!!!!:D

....and other Evolutionists, like Sir Arthur Keith, openly admit that they ONLY believe in Spontaneous Evolution because they refuse to countenance the ONLY alternative......which is Special Creation!!!:D

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'd hesitate to say that PDN is "clearly unfamiliar" with anything mind you.

In this instance, I'll stand over my comment

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The academic freedom angle is something I'd not encountered before myself.

The "Academic Freedom" strategy has been doing the rounds for at least three or four years and it's produced some very bizarre bills, some of which has been enacted, some ditched, and many more on the way. In scientific circles, they're referred to as "stealth creationism" bills.

Here's the DI on Florida's now-defunct "Academic Freedom Act", in which -- gosh! -- evolution is the only thing singled out for criticism:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/prepared_remarks_for_florida_a.html

I'm sure they've produced similar "remarks" for the current Louisiana gig. Utah and a few more states are doing similar things.

...and they're more than word games too. Most of these bills are intended to intimidate teachers ("leftist" "dictator professors" in the words of one of the sponsors of the Florida bill) by permitting students to sue for quite a wide range of spurious offenses.

.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......I think that this thread PROVES that, a legitimate debate and controversy does indeed surround evolution!!!!!!:D

This thread has demonstrated that the only manner in which one may effectively challenge evolution is by attacking semantics or pretending that it is a moral philosophy. Even then, there seems to be no compelling justification for the supposed sole alternative.

J C wrote: »

......anyway, your points boils down to :-

Evolutionist Speculation---- GOOD!!!

Creation Science

---

NOT GOOD!!!

Must you always grossly over-simplify everything? It's little wonder you have so much difficulty with the theory of evolution. Or that you insist on rendering all situations into dichotomies.

J C wrote: »

Basically the Materialists and assorted Atheists want to 'induct' EVERY child into their religious worldview .....

How can unfaith be considered a religious worldview? Religions demand faith in the unknowable. Atheism demands belief only in the tangible. Your statement is self-contradictory.

As to wanting to induct all to their world view... I have to wonder how they'd expect anyone to accept their world view without compelling evidence. No benevolent God, no cozy afterlife, no objective morality or objective meaning. That's a hard sell. And it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to accept it or promote it without compelling evidence.

For power? Far easier to invent a new God, a new faith. The human mind much prefers patterns and meaning after all.

J C wrote: »

...and Spontaneous Evolution is THE key tenet of this viewpoint......

Please. Spontaneous evolution is a phrase that you invented. A concept that you created in order to give you a softer target than the theory of evolution.

J C wrote: »

......and, wherever the Evolutionists are in a position to do so, they will allow NO alternative religious viewpoint to be presented.....

Show me a scientific paper, not a quoted personal opinion, which demands the elimination of faith. Secularism does not demand this and secularism is all that the "evolutionists" are looking for.

J C wrote: »

...and they deftly get away with it by claiming scientific validity for their worldview......when it is actually just another FAITH....

We have tread this path countless times. Science is the opposite of faith. It is the belief in nothing that cannot be observed. It does not deny God, as God cannot be measured. It merely focuses on that which can be measured. Is that not a reasonable practice? There is no basis for your claim that evolution is based on any form of faith.

J C wrote: »

.....and a faith that actually has considerbly less objective evidential and logical support than Creation Science!!!!:D:)

Why then, have creation scientists spent the bulk of their time attempting to re-interpret published, peer-reviewed and tested science? Their primary argument, and yours, is that the establishment are suppressing the truth. They have no motive to do so, given the adversarialism of science. The positive evidence presented in favour of creation is thin on the ground and falls apart at a mere breath of reason.

J C wrote: »

.....and BTW the Materialists are just as hostile to ID Evolutionists (if not more so) than they are to Creationists.......

It's well-documented that creationist writings have been recycled and modified for use by the ID lobby. The differences between the movements are little more than PR. Their similarly unfalsifiable initial assumptions will naturally be rejected by scientists.

J C wrote: »

...so we can conclude from that that Evolution / long ages (which is accepted by many ID Evolutionists) ISN'T the key issue......
.....it is God that they actually want kept out of all educational institutions

Assuming for a moment that you are correct, why should God be brought into educational institutions on anything other than an academic level? Your notions of God are no more compelling and have no greater right to be taught as truth than any other. A secular education system should be a fundamental right as surely a religious freedom should be.

J C wrote: »

......and some have frankly admitted, that they are not prepared to allow a 'Divine foot' inside the institutions that they control!!!!:D

Wake up. If you think that some atheist conspiracy exists you are deluded. If you think that such a conspiracy controls education here or anywhere then you are equally deluded.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Did you read the cases I gave you?

"1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution."

Evolution was banned in Arkansas since 1925. Have you heard of the Scopes trial?

The Creationist movement has tried to have evolution banned. When that failed they tried to have Creationism taught along side evolution. When that failed they tried to have "Intelligent Design" taught along side evolution.

It is nonsense to claim the Creationism movement did not, and is not, trying to influence public policy.

I now see where we are misunderstanding one another. You are claiming the Creationist movement was behind the Scopes tial in 1925, and has been behind efforts to ban evolution in the schools since. But I had understood the Creationist movement to be a later development - indeed, it is often alleged by anti-creationist that it is a modern movement. To the best of my knowledge, the earliest such movement was in 1932, but the present movement essentially began with the publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris & John C. Whitcomb in 1961.

Can you point to which organisation was behind any attempt to ban evolution? Or are you just assuming it?

Flamed Diving

I would have thought Will Paley to be a 'modern-day' creationist. No?

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Wow, you get around the place, don't you? Where do I sign up for this Christianity stuff?

Nice work if you can get it.

Years ago I heard someone give their version of the secret of happiness. They said, "Find something you love doing - something you love so much that you would willingly do it for no reward. Then learn to do that thing so well that others will pay you good money for doing what you love to do anyway."

It was sound advice and I am in the happy position of getting well paid for doing something I love.

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

"Find something you love doing - something you love so much that you would willingly do it for no reward. Then learn to do that thing so well that others will pay you good money for doing what you love to do anyway."

who's gonna pay me for eating doughnuts

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Nice work if you can get it.

Years ago I heard someone give their version of the secret of happiness. They said, "Find something you love doing - something you love so much that you would willingly do it for no reward. Then learn to do that thing so well that others will pay you good money for doing what you love to do anyway."

It was sound advice and I am in the happy position of getting well paid for doing something I love.

That's why I got into biology! I think I'd rather write about it than do the experiments mind you. Scientists are so rigorous that I spend most of my days perfecting and perfecting and then, when it works, I have to repeat it over and over or it means nothing.

My record to date is repeating the same week-long experiment 50 times. I see it in my dreams now.

Flamed Diving

My friend is a microbiologist Phd, and she made a mistake back in Jan of which she only realised now. So basically the past six months have been for nothing. I'm telling ya, no amount of hugs could console her.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

My friend is a microbiologist Phd, and she made a mistake back in Jan of which she only realised now. So basically the past six months have been for nothing. I'm telling ya, no amount of hugs could console her.

The doctorate is a trial by fire... I know how she feels! I have about five months left myself.

Flamed Diving

I told her that making mistakes is every bit as, if not more important than getting it right. The Phd is about getting experience as a researcher, at the end of the day.

MrPudding

MooseJam wrote: »

who's gonna pay me for eating doughnuts

An Garda Síochána?

MrP

PDN

MooseJam wrote: »

who's gonna pay me for eating doughnuts

If you're good enough at it .... http://eatfeats.com/inglewood-ca-donut-contest-june-5-w2500-first-prize.html

BTW, some great links on that site. If I'm ever in Minneapolis and I feel the urge for a 6lb burger, now I'll know where to go.