International creationism

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'd be hard on people who believe General Relativity is a conspiracy on the part of the physics community to discredit Christianity, if such people existed.

This is the thing that is really buggin me though. People are always bringing it back to that issue (of religous dogma being the reason for skepticism). You are the fourth person of five replies to me to do it. Quite amusingly PH was the only one to stick to the science and ignore the religion. (Edit - was and not is .)

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?

[Capt Dizle]

Faith begs no proof, you can seek one or the other without approval from either.

That God created the universe is self-evident to all but the self-important.

Since evolution is a fairly recent theory I suppose it is safe to say that creationism in some form or another has been universally accepted during the bulk of human history.

[Provost Harrison]

And now has been found to be left wanting severely...the amount of time is not relevent, I mean, how long was the earth thought to be flat for as well? The same analogy, you will find...

Yes, faith requires no proof. So therefore it cannot be taken as evidence or a substitute for it...

[Ironikinit]

Boris, my impression is that Muslim creationism is much the same as standard Christian creationism: young Earth, etc.

[monkspider]

I have never had any problem with evolution being taught in a classroom. I just take issue with the current evolutionary paradigm that is so blatantly loaded with unwavering dogma that it is of little use intellectually.
As I have stated previously, there is plenty of good science to be found in Darwin and Lamarck and so forth , it's just that finding this good science becomes a colossal task in and of itself because of all the rubbish you have to dig through in textbooks. If evolution were taught honestly, I doubt that anyone but the most conservative of creationists would take issue with it. Which is the crux of the issue really, not evolution itself, at least for most. I think this lack of intellectual honesty is going to come back and bite some of the evo-fundies in the butt one day.

PS- My rejection of currrent evolutionary theory has nothing to do with my religious teachings. As was stated previously, evolution is really religion-neutral. I simply take issue with it intellectually, not philosophically.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And now has been found to be left wanting severely...the amount of time is not relevent, I mean, how long was the earth thought to be flat for as well? The same analogy, you will find...

Yes, faith requires no proof. So therefore it cannot be taken as evidence or a substitute for it...

And I need no evidence nor substitute for my faith. You are welcome to the fruit of your proofs.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'd be hard on people who believe General Relativity is a conspiracy on the part of the physics community to discredit Christianity, if such people existed.

I have no problem with skepticism, but it irks me when people use false-science to promote their political/relgious views.

a number of physicists doubt GR

Jon Miller

[Provost Harrison]

monkspider, read up about Neodarwinian evolution. You will find that much has been found since the times of Darwin, especially with the advent of our current knowledge of genetics and biology. Look at the evolution of bacteria acquiring resistance to an antibiotic. Look at acquired immunity within higher organisms, including affinity maturation. Even how the immune system fights disease is a remarkable piece of evolution at work, and not on a bacteriological level.

I don't spout any dogma on the evolutionary stance. I just find it hard to comprehend how you can hold the opinions you do monkspider, yet still embrace Christian doctrine?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I personally don't care if someone chooses not to accept evolution as fact, that's their right. What I won't accept is their attempt to foist creationism on public education, or discredit evolution in it, because of their religious agenda. Evolution isn't an agenda, it's the accepted scientific model, and us such, there is no question it should be taught in school science courses and at the exclusion of all theories that aren't accepted by the scientific community. The same goes for teaching scientific geology as opposed to young-earth "geology."

but it is taught as an agenda

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
monkspider, read up about Neodarwinian evolution. You will find that much has been found since the times of Darwin, especially with the advent of our current knowledge of genetics and biology. Look at the evolution of bacteria acquiring resistance to an antibiotic. Look at acquired immunity within higher organisms, including affinity maturation. Even how the immune system fights disease is a remarkable piece of evolution at work, and not on a bacteriological level.

I don't spout any dogma on the evolutionary stance. I just find it hard to comprehend how you can hold the opinions you do monkspider, yet still embrace Christian doctrine?

I find it hard to beleive that there are those that hold Monkspider's opinions, and do not embrace Christianity

Jon Miller

[Provost Harrison]

How do you figure that Jon?

[monkspider]

ProVo H. - I find it hard to believe that such a good person as yourself so throughly hates a religion whose principal teaching is "love your neighbor as yourslf". Pay no attention to what the Falwell types tell you, that's what it's all about. Actually I can rather understand why you would come to resent the institution of christianity because of the actions of some of it's members, not it's teachings. Just remember that the symbol you cross out actually stands for all the ideals you and I fight for and hold most dear.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
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?!?!

It always comes back to the religious issue because religious faith is often the reason that somebody rejects a scientific theory without any tangible evidence to the contrary. An atheist could say "I don't believe in evolution just because" just as easily as a theist could say the same thing, but pretty much everybody realizes that "just because" or "I just don't like it" isn't a very sound justification for a debate. That usually leaves only the justifications based on faith ("I don't believe in evolution because the Bible is infallible and runs contrary to evolution") or evidence ("I don't believe in evolution because it fails to satisfactorily explain [phenomenon X]"). The former justification is pretty much limited to use by fundamentalists, and the latter justification is pretty much limited to use by people who know what they're talking about (scientists and whatnot) of either the atheist or theist ilk. Since people in online debates usually don't really know what they're talking about, this means that at least nine times out of ten somebody debating against evolution (or most other scientific theories) is basing their justifications on faith, i.e. religion, and so it always comes back to the religious issue.

I don't care if somebody doesn't believe in evolution so long as they're not an ******* about it -- quite a few of my friends don't give two figs about evolutionary theory, can't be arsed to try to understand it, and don't particularly care what religious leaders or scientists think of the subject. They're apathetic skeptics, not morons -- they use the "just because" justification, but they don't expect anybody else to take it as dogma and so they're not *******s about it. Online debates (and debates in general) don't take the justifications of these apathetic skeptics into account, though, because you'd be hard-pressed to get an apathetic skeptic to participate in a debate. Of course, some people are just plain stupid and/or trollish and/or dogmatic and expect their "just because" argument to hold as much weight as a reasoned argument in an actual debate, but then they're engaging in a debate in bad faith (they're not really "debating" at all). Usually the "just because" argument is the sole territory of the apathetic skeptics.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider
I have never had any problem with evolution being taught in a classroom. I just take issue with the current evolutionary paradigm that is so blatantly loaded with unwavering dogma that it is of little use intellectually.
As I have stated previously, there is plenty of good science to be found in Darwin and Lamarck and so forth , it's just that finding this good science becomes a colossal task in and of itself because of all the rubbish you have to dig through in textbooks. If evolution were taught honestly, I doubt that anyone but the most conservative of creationists would take issue with it. Which is the crux of the issue really, not evolution itself, at least for most. I think this lack of intellectual honesty is going to come back and bite some of the evo-fundies in the butt one day.

PS- My rejection of currrent evolutionary theory has nothing to do with my religious teachings. As was stated previously, evolution is really religion-neutral. I simply take issue with it intellectually, not philosophically.

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).

but it is taught as an agenda

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?

[Ironikinit]

More on Muslim creationism:

"[Muslim creationism borrows] typical arguments from ID or ICR: gaps in fossil record, 2nd law, paleontological fraud, probability of complex structure, …

But not indiscriminate copying. BAV omits flood geology and Genesis, and draws on Islamic tradition of perceiving a harmonious, complex universe as a clear sign of divine creation."

From http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8