International creationism

[Ironikinit]

DrStrangelove,

One does not have to be an Australian citizen to visit Australia with a tourist visa. Nor does an American need to be a multimillionare to become an Australia citizen. I'm proof, or will be when I become a citizen in a little over two years.

Charles Birch, Australia's theologian scientist emeritus considers American creationists to be at the root of the Australian creationist movement:

"...the head of the Creation Research Institute, Dr Gish, has visited here a number of times, and he is the one who has imported the ideas here. Otherwise I think we’d be fairly free of it."

From http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/...es/s546314.htm

[Ironikinit]

Boshko, regarding Muslim creationism I quote:

The magazine Science, the leading periodical of the scientific community, has also emphasized the impact and sophistication of the works of Harun Yahya and the SRF. In article titled "Creationism Takes Root Where Europe, Asia Meet", the commentary read:

Experts call it (the SRF) the best organized and financed in the Islamic world... They've also swamped the country with sophisticated books such as The Evolution Deceit and The Dark Face of Darwinism (both published under the pseudonym Harun Yahya), which some scientists complain have become more influential than textbooks in certain parts of the country*..

.. BAV (SRF) does not appear to be a bastion for gray beards or backward zealots. "The BAV members I met were mainly young professionals who described themselves as Islamic moderates who are trying to harmonize the Koran with science," says science historian Ronald Numbers of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, author of The Creationists. He's one of the few U.S. experts who has interviewed the group's "honorary president," Adnan Oktar, who according to BAV writes the Yahya books--many of which have been translated into English.

Experts say BAV has developed one of the world's strongest antievolution movements outside of North America and has been making inroads in other Muslim nations.

From: http://www.srf-tr.org/comments.htm

*Turkey

[St Leo]

(Matter of fact all through the Bible prophesy uses metaphoric time measures to predict the coming of Jesus appearances 1 and 2.)

Ah, yes, the many Biblical predictions that Jesus would return within the lifetime of his listeners. Very metaphorical.

If evolution is a fact what a curious method for God to use in creating the universe.

If the laws of evolution are based on geological evidence that was noted as interesting a century before Darwin and the existence of God is based on not having to claim that all of your ancestors were complete idiots when they believed in the [Belgiumming] [Belgiummer], I wonder which carries more credibility.

[Jack_www]

There is always threads like this poping up. Dont you guys get tried of talking about this stuff?? It also seems like people on each side hate each other. This reminds me of the threads people start complaining about Civ3 for some reason.

[Japher]

Creation?

I am a firm believer in evolution, but evolution has nothing to do with orgin or creation.

Does how the universe was created in tale that it was created from something?

Where was this God before He made everything?

What did He make it from?

Did this something or place give to our something or place, would that be considered evolution or creation?

Personally, I feel that explaining the creation of the universe with a "Big Bang" is just as arbitrary as saying that some supreme being made it out of nothing.

Thus, I feel that both are intrinsically wrong in so much that they can't and haven't explained my questions above.

Who will solve the riddle? No one. Ywt, If someone does, would they try to recreate it. Yes, because that is what man tries to do. What happens when man learns how to create a universe? Do they become a god? Or just evolved? Silly questions, I know. Yet, this leads to...

What method would best be used to discern such orgins, assuming that such a thing can be discerned?

Scientific Method: Problem yields Theory yields Testing yields Data yeilds Conclusion (new theory/hypothesis or solid proof).

Religious Method: Problem yields Theory that is accepted as proof by faith (whatever that is)

Seems to me that Religion has already stopped looking for the answers, ergo science will be the victor according to current scoring.

Yet. If science discovers and reproduces the creation process would that make science akin to religion, at that time? Looks like religion begat science, and in the end science begat religion... or would that be in the end?

[Urban Ranger]

Lincoln,

Give it a rest. Creationism has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Why? Choose from the following:

1. Creationism is not a scientific theory
2. The International Brotherhood of Evilutionists has been censoring these articles.

[Boris Godunov]

Not to be a MrFun, but I'm still waiting for those who accuse those who teach evolutionary theory of being "dogmatic" in their approach to answer my questions...

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Having taken biology courses that discuss evolution, I failed to see anything dogmatic about it. It seemed to me to a pretty clear presentation of what we believe to be scientific fact and what supports that fact. Could you support these assertions with examples? Personally, I've yet to see a question by Creationist about evolution that was not answered more than satisfactorally by evolutionists--at least from scientific standpoint. I have, however, seen Creationists repeatedly use the same flawed arguments when it is demonstrably shown the logic behind them do not hold water (Watchmaker, for instance).



Again, I've never seen this. How can anything taught in a science course that is based on scientific theory be an agenda? Its not a politics or sociology course, it's science. In every other scientific field, the prevalent and accepted theories are given the same treatment. Why should we make an exception for non-evolutionary theories just to satisify people with religious agendas?

[loinburger]

Found a good article (through Straight Dope) that provides a good summary of evolution's counterarguments to creationism.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
DrStrangelove,

One does not have to be an Australian citizen to visit Australia with a tourist visa. Nor does an American need to be a multimillionare to become an Australia citizen. I'm proof, or will be when I become a citizen in a little over two years.

Charles Birch, Australia's theologian scientist emeritus considers American creationists to be at the root of the Australian creationist movement:

"...the head of the Creation Research Institute, Dr Gish, has visited here a number of times, and he is the one who has imported the ideas here. Otherwise I think we’d be fairly free of it."

From http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/...es/s546314.htm

If Gish is an American then he is exporting the ideas to Australia, not importing them. The people who are importing the idea are those who are receptive to them. Don't blame us for what your people are willing to believe.

The Christian Identity movement was founded by a looney English bishop years ago. These are the folks who believe that Christians are the real Jews and that Jews are actually fakes. They're the ones who rubbed shoulders with Timothy McVeigh, giving him a sort of encouragement towards his Oklahoma City endeavor. Don't you just hate it when the English loonies import their crackpot ideas into the country?

I know this is off topic, but I had a friend, a software engineer who worked in Australian academia for a couple of years. He was even then an accomplished programmer. He liked Australia so much that he applied for a permanent visa so that he could found a company based on some of his ideas. He had the recommendations of the university department he had worked for even though he had finished his work there. He was turned down, returned to the US and is now a multimillionaire who owns his own (still) successful software company. Your loss, our gain.

[Urban Ranger]

Duane Gish is definitely a Usian. The head of ICR is a certain Dr. Henry Morris, Gish is his second in command.

[Ramo]

Why do people feel that not believing a scientific theory (that happens to disagrees with a religion, namely christianity) is based on the belief that religion must be right? Can't someone disbelieve evolution simply because they think it is wrong? Why always bring it back to the religious issue when its not being raised?!?!

Would you tell an atheist they are stupid for not believing in evolution? So why say it to an open-minded christian?

I have absolutely no problem with questioning science. The problem is, when it comes to evolution, most of its detractors don't approach the issue with a genuine search for truth. And I don't really have any patience for that in science.

a number of physicists doubt GR

So do I (well, I "doubt" "everything"). But you're missing my point...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Duane Gish is definitely a Usian. The head of ICR is a certain Dr. Henry Morris, Gish is his second in command.

OK, but Gish just visited Australia. Some Australian counterpart must be in charge of disseminating these ideas. Who?

[Urban Ranger]

Okay, since I seem to have recalled an episode where Richard Dawkins ran into some deceptive Australian creationists, I digged around on the net. There is an article published by the Australian Skeptics on this:

Recently Professor Dawkins had been made aware of a video tape being circulated in creationist circles, in which he appears, and on the cover of which is his photograph. Titled From a Frog to a Prince, it is distributed in the Australia by Answers in Genesis, of Acacia Ridge, Queensland and in the USA by American Portrait Films, Cleveland, Ohio. Copyright is held by "A.I.G. - I.C.R. - Keziah" and it was produced by "Keziah".

AIG, as regular readers will recognise, refers to Answers in Genesis, the new trading name of the Queensland based Creation Science Foundation; ICR is the Institute of Creation Research, a prominent US creationist outfit, and the source for much of what passes for information in such circles; Keziah was then unfamiliar to us.

Prof Dawkins was puzzled, and not a little perplexed, to be informed by a Christian contact in the USA that his appearance on the tape included a question being posed to him, whereupon he pauses for 11 seconds, and then answers an entirely different question. His contact, having viewed the tape, and having noticed the long pause and seeming evasion of what was a pretty simple question about evolution, was convinced that it had been a set-up.

As he hadn't then seen the tape, it was difficult for Richard to comprehend the full details, but he was suspicious of the circumstances, and sought our assistance in tracking down Keziah, which he thought was an Australian company. We had no information about Keziah, though we did recall a request from a woman purporting to represent American Portrait Films, for an interview with Richard while he was in Australia as our special guest at the 1996 Australian Skeptics annual convention in Melbourne. Subsequently, we managed to track down Keziah Productions to Peregian in Queensland.

So would it be possible that it's somebody associated with this Keziah Productions?

[CyberGnu]

Rogan:

First of all, Creationism cannot be disproven.


Secondly, believing in creation is a religious belief - not a scientific one.


In other words, they may adopt a philosophy which is different from yours without denying the data or giving up critical thought.

I think you have confused creationism with something else... Possibly with what Lincoln claims creationism to be.

Maybe we should set this definition thing straight from the beginning.

A creationist is someone who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis. This covers not only the creation of the universe, but also the man and the various species of animals.

From dictionary.com:
cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm) n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

From the EB:
Creationism: also called Creation Science, or Scientific Creationism; counterevolutionary, fundamentalist theory or doctrine that postulates that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing.

Also from the EB:Creationism grew as a result of the advancement of evolution that was evident after the publication in 1859 of Darwin's Origin of Species. Within two decades, most of the scientific community had accepted some form of organic evolution. Many religious leaders, however, feared that a less-than-literal reading of the biblical story of creation would result in a loss of faith; and well-known spokesmen for the cause—such as William Jennings Bryan—saw modern war and other purported signs of moral decay to be evidence of the damage brought about by the teaching of godless evolution.

I hope that settles things... I personally think the claim that a creationist is someone who merely believes that God created the universe is disingenious. Possibly created to deliberately muddle the debate.

And now you see why someone who believes in creationism should not recieve a PhD in Biology? It is not because a religious philosophy, it is because he would have to reject evolution...

[CyberGnu]

This reminds me of the threads people start complaining about Civ3 for some reason.

Nononononono!!! The people who like CivIII will burn in hell. The creationists will merely look incredibly foolish when they stand in front of their maker and he says 'Dude!!! What thell were you thinking?!!!!'