Are creationists dishonest?

Great Debates
1

I’ve only been here since January, but how may times have we gone through this?

Sometimes it’s with the same people.

Anyone with even a marginal interest can easily find several sites dedicated to the creationist/evolution debate. Ignorance here is inexcusable.

There is absolutely no credible evidence for creationism.

Creationists insist on using the same old tired and rigorously refuted arguments, circular logic, and sophistry to try to prove something unscientific by scientific standards.

You might as well ask if God can create a weight he cannot lift. It seems obvious to me that the question is unanswerable, and really has no meaning.

Since the evidence is so prevalent and easily accessible, the arguments so thoroughly debunked… it begs the question:

Are they contrived?

As a whole I think they are.

Creationists fal into 3 categories.

  1. uninformed

  2. dishonest (this includes both people who know better, and those that are fooling themselves)

  3. Stupid

Perhaps we should stop wasting time on the latter two. They tend to resent serious debate (not that they have an alternative considering there arguments)

Maybe if we just pretend to agree with them they will go away. How can I suggest this on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance?

Easy. These people aren’t ignorant sop much as dishonest. Why waste our time with liars?

“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar

2

Or maybe its the fact that every smart creationist knows its stupid to argue with an evolutionist. Ive yet to see a single evolutionist person actually ever consider creationism as a valid arguement. Untill they can have a open mind theres no point in arguing with them

3

Well, you’re half right. There are plenty of creationists smart enough not to argue the point “scientifically” (some on this board BTW), but that is because they are content to allow faith to carry the day and know that faith has no place in science.

4

I feel your pain.

I finally got fed up over at the LBMB, after seeing 20 different evolution discussions come and go and still seeing some regulars talk about the missing link, or that we came from apes, or spouting the usual tired arguments that have been de-bunked time and time again. The only reason I really post over there is to correct such egregious scientific errors, trying to undo the damage done by Hovind, Gish, and their ilk.

I finally posted a thread asking people if they thought it was worth it. I can keep posting the definition of a scientific theory until I give myself Carpal Tunnel, but would it make anyone stop using the term to discredit evolution?

I got a few types of responses. A few suggested that I would burn in the fiery pit of hell for suggesting that the Bible might not be literal and inerrant. A few saw the word “evolution” and launched into the rhetoric, as if on auto-pilot. Several asked genuine questions about scientific principles they didn’t understand. Many ignored the post.

The problem is that we’re not up against facts–we’re up against a deep-seeded mindset. The Bible is the way it is, and anything that says any different is wrong, wrong, wrong. They don’t want to learn about evolution any more than they want to pick up the Koran–to them, it’s just another pagan religion.

There are some creationists who freely admit that the evidence supports evolution, but they choose on faith to believe that the Genesis account is correct. I don’t really have a problem with this, as long as they’re not trying to push it into the schools. (There’s a whole other thread on this matter, though.)

The most common criticism of evolutionists over on the LBMB is that you can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bible you accept. I feel the same way about reality.

Dr. J

PS: I would love to see a 3-on-3 SDMB vs. LBMB Creation vs. Evolution Cage Match–say, our Dr. Fidelus, David B, and Satan against their Ghoti and two minions of his choosing. On a neutral site, of course, with posting limited to only those six participants. Brian tried to start such a thing up here, but it never materialized.

5

Exactly.

-Adam-

6

As a Christian, there are many parts of evolution that I don’t disagree with. I’d be an idiot if I did.

However, there are also parts of evolution that frankly don’t make sense to me and I question them. I’m not a scientist but I’m a fairly intelligent person and I don’t think the world exploded into being or that I evolved from an ape.

Minimal argument - How can you look at the amazing way humans are made, body, heart & soul and say it’s an accident? I don’t buy it.

7

The problem with that 3-on-3 thing, DrJ, is that their side gets to have neat weapons like Hellfire, lightning bolts from God & swarms of locusts. We would only have the fulcrum, calculus & carbon dating to defend ourselves with.

The science of evolution offers answeres to many of the myths posed by creationism, and has the added attraction of being real. --Paraphrasing Carl Sagan

8

Elleon:

Allow me to ask the following.

Have you examined the arguments for and against the big bang? THere are many books on the subject.

Have you visited multiple creation versus evolution websites and attempted to understand the arguments and evidence?

If you have not, then you may want to consider whether your opinion is a credible one.

If you have, then consider the following

Why does sharing common ancestry with an ape bother you? Apes have many admirable qualities, and they resemble us physically. In fact we share 99% of our genes with Chimpanzees. To an impartial visitor from another planet we would probably seem more akin to apes then poodles are to Rotweillers.

Besides, whether you choose to beleive it or not, the links between us and other primates are clearly established, and not really subject to opinion.

As for the world exploding into being, it didn’t. The universe did. We can assume this with a high degree of accuracy from direct observation.

We can observe the galaxies receding from a central point, and even determine their velocities from redshift. We can hear “echoes” of the Big-Bang. The physics of the situation is pretty clearly understood all the way back to a few billionths of a second after the big-bang. We understand how matter is created. There is a huge amount of evidence to support that this evident occured, and substantially nothing to contradict it.

THe high level of confidence in this knowledge is the result of a thousand plus years of careful study by countless men and women eager to understand the nature of the universe we live in.

Your lack of understanding is not evidence against this. This is called the “argument from ignorance,” and is a classic logical fallacy (which I’ve been guilty of more than once.)

I am reading an excellent book called “The GOd Particle” which is a step by step study of mankinds knowledge of the universe and how it came into being. I would recommend it.

As for the soul and faith. Neither can be argued from a scientific standpoint, and I think you will find few that will challenge your beliefs on this basis.

Besides, I personally think that the universe as we understand it points to a much more glorious and wonderful God, then the arbitrary and petty tyrant described in the Old Testament.

9

Scylla:

Yet, you, and many others do challenge it. Let us believe in Creation, and don’t say that we are uninformed, dishonest, or stupid for doing so. Can you disprove Creation, using science? No. You can’t prove that God exists using science either. Does that mean He isn’t there? No, absolutely not.

I realize that many Creationsists want to pass laws that say it should be taught as fact in schools, but that is another story altogether.

10

Oh, please, not me. I know modesty forbade you from mentioning yourself, Doc, but you definitely outclass me in this one.

I, too, got sick of banging my head against that wall, and no aspirin is big enough to get me to return.

And as to the person who stated that evolutionists do not listen to creationists and are biased, answer me a question: How come mainstream scientists have debunked every bit of creationist rhetoric? If they did not listen to what creationists say, how would they know the answers? I think they listened, checked the claims out and came up with reasons why the claims were wrong.

Here is the fact which so many - especially you - don’t get:

If there is evidence of a young earth and no evolution on this planet, evidence that mainstream science cannot explain, the person who brings it up will probably win a nobel prize for his work.

Trust me, science listens. There’s just nothing to listen to!

Yer pal,
Satan

http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, four days, 2 hours, 14 minutes and 32 seconds.
443 cigarettes not smoked, saving $55.47.
Life saved: 1 day, 12 hours, 55 minutes.

11

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Zion:

Yet, you, and many others do challenge it. Let us believe in Creation, and don’t say that we are uninformed, dishonest, or stupid for doing so.[/quuote][

Adam, nobody says that believers in creation are any of these things. We say that anyone who puts their faith in Creation Scientists are these things. You do understand the difference between having faith in God and having faith in some creation scientist, don’t you?

I have never and will never argue withfaith. Neither does anyone here. We are arguing against bad science which lies in the name of YOUR God, Adam. Do you think God wants or needs men to lie for Him? I don’t.

YTou should be arguing right alongside David B, you know, Adam. Because if you don’t, you are condoning lies in God’s name.

Yer pal,
Satan

http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, four days, 2 hours, 21 minutes and 40 seconds.
443 cigarettes not smoked, saving $55.49.
Life saved: 1 day, 12 hours, 55 minutes.

12

What more can I say?

Satan is correct. It is not faith in divine creation that we argue against, it is the attempt to equate Creation “Science” with Evolutionary Science.

It’s not that we don’t have an open mind, it’s that, on a scientific basis, the vast preponderance of actual evidence shows that evolution is correct, and creationism is incorrect. There’s really no serious doubt in the matter. As I tell my teenage children, just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean I don’t understand.

Religious Faith is, at some level, often in conflict with science. Once you have accepted a proposition as fact, without observation, even something as abstruse as the existence of God, you risk the temptation to reason from that proposition as if it were equivalent to a fact obtained from observation.

It’s very important to my own epistemology to accept nothing as fact except by careful observation. It is important to me to derive my theories only from facts derived from observation. I will, of course, provisionally accept theories and observations outside my area of expertise from people who have demonstrated their commitment to the scientific method.

Do you want to prove my science wrong? Please do! That’s how science progesses. But do it on the basis of facts derived from observation, not circular or byzantine rationalizations of propositions you accept as true by definition.

And quit whining when one of us scientific types points out that you said something factually incorrect or perpetuate an obvious fallacy. And if you persist in such erroneous behavior, expect us to note that tendency here with some contempt, and analyze your personal shortcomings more thoroughly in the Pit.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

13

Satan:

Apparently you didn’t read the OP.

Elleon:

Is this a joke? You provide three objections to evolution, yet all three of them are not part of evolution. So are you a member of category of 1, 2 or 3?

14

Scylla:

I have read some about the creation vs. evolution debate. Frankly most of what I read is scientific mumbo jumbo that I could only understand with a doctorate. (Or maybe not)

I’m not totally closed minded to the fact that creation is somewhat…well, let’s just say it does require faith. But I am also a logical person.

Just a quick search can turn up what look like holes to me in the Big Bang.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts. www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma2.htm

Now, as for it bothering me to share common ancestory with an ape, it doesn’t, I just don’t believe that first there were apes, and then from apes, came humans.

I will try to find that book in my quest for continual learning. I appreciate the suggestion.

I’m outta hear for the night so I’ll check in in the a.m.

15

Elleon, on the off chance that you have never heard this before, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Once.
Evolution does not teach that Man descended from Ape. Man and Ape descended from a common ancestor.

BTW, The “Big Bang” has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. It is a different topic. It is unrelated to evolution.
o.k.?

Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.

16

How come in these debates I never seem to here from theistic evolutionists? Am I just not reading the threads close enough.

There are some of us who believe that the first few chapters of Genesis may not be literally true, but are true in a symbolic sense. Call it mythology if you want to. I don’t think mythology is a dirty word.

I believe in evolution, but I don’t believe that it was an accident. The first event, the Big Bang, if you will, must necessarily have had a First Cause, which is God. And could anything as complex as a DNA molecule have come about by chance?

I believe that evolution was set in motion, and guided by God, who had a purpose behind it. Ultimately, he created human beings, with whom His intent was to have a relationship in which humans enjoyed perfect communion with their creator.

Of course, we had to go and louse it up.

Holy scripture is supposed to be about Man’s relationship with God. It isn’t meant to be a science textbook.

So there.

Now in my second month of exile in the 21 pit

17

I’m a high school dropout. The last year of education I completed was 11th grade. I have, however, taken the trouble to educate myself. Athough I lack the academic training (not to mention the inclination) to perform orginal scientific work*, at least I have gained the ability to follow most scientific explanations.

Ignorance is no excuse. Lack of academic qualifications is no excuse. Logic, experimental methodology and scientific terminology, can all be learned on one’s one.

Argument from incredulity is always a fallacy. That you don’t understand a theory is merely an indication that you should either trust those who do understand it, or you should eductate yourself to form an intelligent opinion.

As to the link you posted, it lists a collection of vague pseudoscientific bullshit that reveals a complete lack of even a layman’s understanding of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Astrophysics.
*Actually, I’m doing original work in Computer Science, which is my area of expertise. Look for me in Stockholm in about ten years. :wink:

Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!

18

Ignorance is no excuse. Lack of academic qualifications is no excuse. Logic, experimental methodology and scientific terminology, can all be learned on one’s own.

Apparently, the preceding does not seem to apply to proofreading. :smiley:

19

From that link:

Do I misunderstand this statement, or does somebody have a REALLY out of date periodic table?

20

Yet you feel that statements from a web page who’s author does not demonstrate even the most rudimentary understanding of cosmology or the basics of modern science is likely to say anything even the slightest bit meaningful about a theory that people with PhD’s who’ve forgotten more math and physics than you and I combined know have toiled for decades to produce? Perhaps that needs some more thought.

If you are interested in learning some basics, a good layman’s introduction to modern cosmology is available here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

This is the best one I’ve seen on the web, and it includes both a FAQ answering certain popular questions and misconceptions, and a few chapters of introductory material. If you read it, you will know orders of magnitude more about the topic than the author of the web page you link to above and will have a better basis for forming opinions. If you don’t understand parts, there are probably people here who can help. It will take some effort on your part, however.

What many people seemingly fail to realize is that scientific theories in cosmology (as well as most other disciplines) involve considerably more rigor than is apparent by reading the popular literature. Ned Wright’s excellent tutorial I link to above is only a distillation of some of the basic ideas, which are published in detail in peer reviewed journals which are out of range of most of us who are only casually interested.

Certainly there are errors in modern cosmology, as well as observations it does not currently explain. But overall it has proven to be a pretty solid theory that does explain a great deal of observational evidence quite accurately, if you actually work through the mathematics. Serious attacks on various cosmological theories are exceedingly unlikely to come from lay-sources such as your URL. It is far more likely that modifications to or outright falsifications of such theories will come from members of the scientific community who DO understand them in some depth and can mount a somewhat more rigorous attack based on valid science and observational evidence instead of stringing together nonsense phrases.

(I should really know better than to get involved in these debates… nobody’s opinion ever really changes, does it?)

–
peas on earth