Creationists Call for Debate

[andros]

Bring forth the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch . . .

Palm Cove, here’s the rundown, as briefly as possible.

One of our regulars (Satan? I really should remember–bad andros, no cookie) was invited to visit another bulletin board, the Left Behind Message Board (LBMB) at http://www.leftbehind.com/messageboard.html. It’s a board on a fansite for the novels in the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye. The books are written from an Evangelical Christian POV and detail the events on Earth after the Rapture (when all the best Christians are assumed bodily into Heaven). As a result of the books’ perspective, the bulk of posters at the LBMB are Evangelical or Fundamanetalist Christian.

The SDMB poster was startled by what he perceived to be a complete lack of scientific understanding at LBMB, and a dearth of critical thinking skills. For better or worse, he opened a thread here in Great Debates to provide the URL of the LBMB and to share some of the things he found. Several GD regs decided to register at the other board and contribute to their discussions (and hopefully following Cecil’s example of stamping out ignorance). FTR, these people included a couple very dedicated (non-Evangelical/non-Fundamentalist) Christians, as well as a non-Christian theist or two and at least one very professional skeptic.

As they posted over at LBMB, they kept those of us reading here informed as to what threads were hot, what discussions/debates/arguments to look for, and often shared some of what they felt to be the more egregious examples of ignorance, illogic, or hypocrisy. This led, unfortunately, to some humorous and occasionally insulting comments in the GD thread about some of the people at the LBMB. This “Can you believe these fundies” thread took on a life of its own and became just huge, although only a dozen or so people (myself included, though I never posted at LBMB) were active participants in the thread.

Around last New Year’s, a disgruntled and possibly quite psychotic former poster from SDMB (He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken) registered at LBMB and began telling folks there about the organized and malicious “Straight Dope Invasion.” This was completely bogus from our perspective, of course, but HWNSNBS had a hardon for many of the people participating in the thread here and provided the LBMB’ers with a link to the thread and the disparaging comments within.

Followed a “counter-invasion” consisting of several LBMB members registering here and doing a fair amount of drive-by posting, some mild message flooding, and some general annoyance. I’m not sure, but I seem to recall an administrator at LBMB encouraging this behavior. Hurt feelings abounded on both sides, and a lot of people were pretty angry. But the administration of the LBMB called off the “attack,” apologies were offered all around, and there remained some communication between the boards, with both gaining some new regular and occasional contributors.

About the biggest issue for the LBMB folks was our running discussion and commentary here in GD, and the impolite things that were said here. Jon (Navigator) was among those hurt by some of the comments and wishes now to remind everyone to be polite and respectful of the views of others.
[sub](Nevertheless, I have to say that just thinking about He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken makes my hackles raise. Whatta tool.)[/sub]

[Gaudere]

Around last New Year’s, a disgruntled and possibly quite psychotic former poster from SDMB (He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken) registered at LBMB and began telling folks there about the organized and malicious “Straight Dope Invasion.”

I don’t believe HWNSNBS actually registered there, and I believe a pounder (whose name I will not give out) also informed the management at LBMB. (This does not change the fact that HWNSNBS almost certainly tattled in a deliberate attempt to create as much chaos as possible.) But anyhow, let bygones be bygones.

[Palm_Cove]

Andros, Thanks for that explanation.

Through a bit of extra thread reading, I think I have worked out who the HWNSNBS is and can understand your desire to avoid a repeat performance!

[lissener]

It seems obvious to me that without suggesting that the notion of DNA is a hoax, it is impossible for evolution not to happen: DNA’s two central properties make this so. DNA passes on a parent’s traits to its offspring, but not all traits, and not exactly: each offspring is slightly different from each parent. Simply multiply these two things by X generations and you inescapably have an accumulation of changes. This is undeniable, and yet the denialists deny it.

Navigator’s equanimity notwithstanding, denialists are by definition not interested in a debate: they are interested only in accumulating pseudofacts which can be easily spun into positive reinforcements of a presupposed conclusion, and define anything else as attacks upon their belief system and as such unworthy of attention.

They disavow science because it does not begin with a conclusion–i.e., that god is a micromanager–and instead begins from a not-knowing and seeks to find a knowing. (Science does not toss god out, Navigator; rather it leaves god out. Science does not begin with a preconceived refutation of god; it starts with a clean slate.)

Denialists are not interested in examining; only in defending. As I see it, denialists are a unique fringe group that do not experience spirituality as an opening of their souls, but rather as a closing. To refuse to be open to the things that your god has made be; to refuse to celebrate the ability to learn and to accumulate experience and knowledge that is the single gift that makes you a human being; to insist arrogantly on a god of stasis rather than accept humbly the dynamic god in evidence all around you; all this in the service of a misguided allegiance to a single, archaic point along that eternal continuum of knowledge, strikes me as arbitrary at best, and self-limiting and self-destructive at worst.

[hardcore]

Navigator, I would like to use some of your points to illustrate an issue I consider important – namely, the imaginary conflict between evolution and theism.

My thoughts were that some of the science of evolution presupposes no creator. Given that science requires empirical evidence, any thought of God is tossed out, even when there is circumstantial evidence towards a design paradigm.

Others have touched on this, but I would like to try and add to it if I may. Leaving aside the supposed circumstantial evidence (of which there is none), you do realize that all of science presumes the universe operates with no supernatural influence, do you not? This serves a practical purpose, as we would never gain knowledge of the world around us if we resorted to magical explanations for everything we did not understand.

But evolution is by no means alone in this. We do not imagine that the gravity is the result of angels in flight, or that atoms are held together by divine intervention (unless you are Jack Chick :rolleyes: ). Lightning is not explained as the throw toys of Zeus, nor does the sun traverse the sky in a chariot driven by Apollo. The point is, all of science seeks to explain the world by natural means - evolution simply follows good scientific practice when it does the same. Perhaps you can explain to me why evolution alone is singled out by theists?

My point is that there are some that extend the theory of evolution past the ‘species change’ PoV

Even if this is true, why would it make any difference? Others have misapplied their religious beliefs to justify racism, sexism, slavery, and murder. Do their actions change your view on the truthfulness of Christianity? Of course not. If someone mistakenly tries to use evolution to establish the non-existence of God, it is their argument that is in error, not the science.

[SoulFrost]

BigRed1 sez:

Guess I haven’t evolved enough to keep up with it all.

Maybe not, Beth–but damn, you’re awful cute for a Neanderthal…

-Dav…erm…SnowFrost

[David_B]

Others have already responded to much of this, but since it was directed at me, I will also respond.

Navigator said:

Educate me, how much philosophy is there in the theory of evolution?

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Then, kind sir, please how much is the theory of evolution used to explain a materialistic philosophy?

I have no idea, nor do I care. Anybody can use a theory for incorrect reasons. Back in the days of slavery, some people used the Bible to justify it. Does that automatically mean the Bible is wrong? If I said that because of the heliocentric theory, that means there must be little gray aliens visiting us nightly, does that mean the heliocentric theory is wrong?

I don’t think those are unfair questions.

In that, I’m afraid you’re wrong.

The science of evolution presupposes no-creator because there, supposedly, is no empirical evidence for said creator.

It presupposes no such thing. It says nothing about a creator – one way or the other. You’ve been around here long enough to understand this. If the theory really presupposed no creator, how do you think the Christians around here who accept it could go on? Are you ignoring the Polycarps and Tris of the world?

To explain a process in which nothing miraculous happens one HAS to presuppose a materialistic philosophy.

To explain a process in which anything miraculous happens one HAS to presuppose magic. Magic isn’t science.

On the other side of the argument, creation and intelligent design advocates, clearly state their presuppositions, and then are slighted by ‘hard scientists’ because of their philosophy, not because of their science.

Baloney. They are nailed for their lousy science and their presuppositions (which interfere with their ability to do science).

(Dr. Dino and the like excluded please… I freely admit his teachings are hardly science.)

One down, a few hundred to go.

[David_B]

Either I’m going crazy or having a severe memory lapse.

I could have sworn that, in the thread Poly originally directed us to, Mr. Anderson made some comment about a conspiracy against creation between scientists, atheists, and the ACLU. I thought I responded and asked about it. But now I can’t find it there for the life of me! Was it in some other thread?

[Navigator]

*Originally posted by lissener *
Navigator’s equanimity notwithstanding, denialists are by definition not interested in a debate: they are interested only in accumulating pseudofacts which can be easily spun into positive reinforcements of a presupposed conclusion, and define anything else as attacks upon their belief system and as such unworthy of attention.

I guess you would label me a denialist. Fair enough, I’ve never really had an interest in debating evolution. I read, but I’m not consumed by it. I do not, however ‘accumulate pseudofacts’, though I may be ‘unworthy of your attention’, but hey I seem to have gotten it.

They disavow science because it does not begin with a conclusion–i.e., that god is a micromanager–and instead begins from a not-knowing and seeks to find a knowing. (Science does not toss god out, Navigator; rather it leaves god out. Science does not begin with a preconceived refutation of god; it starts with a clean slate.)

I think we are on the same page WRT Science, whether you ‘toss it out’ or ‘leave it out’, the fact remains that in the white halls of scientific theory, God is absent.

Denialists are not interested in examining; only in defending. As I see it, denialists are a unique fringe group that do not experience spirituality as an opening of their souls, but rather as a closing.

an interesting expose on a mad eup word, so know you are extending your hypothetical of a denialist as someone who has no spirituality, based on nothing more than a few posts of mine you have read, or the posts of others that you have labeled ‘denialist’ so you can put them in your petri dish and examine their motives. I don’t think you know me well enough to 1. label me a denialist (though I accept the FIRST definition of someone not really interested in debating the fine points of evolution), 2.) to cast any judgement on my spirituality.

To refuse to be open to the things that your god has made be; to refuse to celebrate the ability to learn and to accumulate experience and knowledge that is the single gift that makes you a human being; to insist arrogantly on a god of stasis rather than accept humbly the dynamic god in evidence all around you; all this in the service of a misguided allegiance to a single, archaic point along that eternal continuum of knowledge, strikes me as arbitrary at best, and self-limiting and self-destructive at worst.

Quiite a rant, and quite unfair IMNSHO. If you attribute all these attributes of your made-up-word ‘denialist’, you really don’t know me, but are instead interested in casting dispersions for the sole reason of letting yourself be heard, and raising yourself higher than others. In whatever case, have fun on your pedestal.

[Navigator]

*Originally posted by hardcore *
Navigator, I would like to use some of your points to illustrate an issue I consider important – namely, the imaginary conflict between evolution and theism.

I’ll be glad to have a discourse with you on a topic you hold so dearly.

Others have touched on this, but I would like to try and add to it if I may. Leaving aside the supposed circumstantial evidence (of which there is none), you do realize that all of science presumes the universe operates with no supernatural influence, do you not?

I think I’ve stated that several times. Again, I have no beef with the scientific method, it serves its purpose very well, to study things based on empirical evidence the ‘leavinging out’ out of the supernatural is to be expected.

This serves a practical purpose, as we would never gain knowledge of the world around us if we resorted to magical explanations for everything we did not understand.

Agreed. But when confronted with something that is ‘supernatural’ often science discards it because it lacks the tools to examine a phenomenom outside of empirical evidence.

snip I mostly agree with that

Perhaps you can explain to me why evolution alone is singled out by theists?

As I stated in my response to lissener’s polemic post, I’m not a hard core creationist. The subject is fascinating, but at the end of the day, I shrug my shoulders and see the whole debate as trivial, and not really applicable to my daily walk. My focus is living each day in accordance with God’s will, I sometimes do a lousy job of that, but each day I get the chance to try again.

Even if this is true, why would it make any difference? Others have misapplied their religious beliefs to justify racism, sexism, slavery, and murder. Do their actions change your view on the truthfulness of Christianity? Of course not. If someone mistakenly tries to use evolution to establish the non-existence of God, it is their argument that is in error, not the science. bolded mine

I’m glad we agree on that. My entire point is that in some cases materialism is as much religion as any other faith based belief.

[Navigator]

*Originally posted by David B *
None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

agreed.

I have no idea, nor do I care. Anybody can use a theory for incorrect reasons. …

Although I am somewhat agast that you admit to having ‘no idea’ on a subject we agree, and that was my point.

In that, I’m afraid you’re wrong.

Thank you for answering them anyhow. In the end it shows that we agree that theories can be extened past their usefullness.
It presupposes no such thing. It says nothing about a creator – one way or the other. You’ve been around here long enough to understand this. If the theory really presupposed no creator, how do you think the Christians around here who accept it could go on? Are you ignoring the Polycarps and Tris of the world?
[/quote]

A somewhat polemic response, what does my high regard for Tris and Poly, and their ability to keep separate faith and the practice of science have to do with anything.

My wording may have been shoddy, but I think I agree with what everyone is saying. Science is silent with all things supernatural. Some scientists take that to the extreme where materialism becomes their bias in all things, and rule out the supernatural not just in a lab but in all things. I applaud Poly, Tris and others that are able to rise above that.

To explain a process in which anything miraculous happens one HAS to presuppose magic. Magic isn’t science.

Again, you state my point, trying to use science to describe something supernatual is ridiculous.

Baloney. They are nailed for their lousy science and their presuppositions (which interfere with their ability to do science).

Then is it fair to nail scientists to try to use science to explain philosophy?

[Gaudere]

Then is it fair to nail scientists to try to use science to explain philosophy?

What are you saying here? We all look at the world from the perspective of our own philosophy and use what we know about the world to bolster/modify our beliefs; as long as a scientist’s philosophy does not interfere with the science he does, I may not think much of his philosophy, but I’ll respect the science. If a scientist does good science, I don’t think it matters if he thinks what he finds in the natural world is evidence that God exists or evidence that God doesn’t exist. Science does not concern itself with anything that we cannot find empirical evidence of; scientists may believe whatever metaphysical philosophies they wish, as long as they do not corrupt data, twist research or lie to promote their beliefs at the expense of good science. If a beetle-researcher does good research, I don’t care if he does it because he thinks God is a giant beetle and thinks finding thousands of new species of beetles is evidence for that. (Although, of course, any statements about the existence of a metaphysical God-beetle without any empirical evidence of the God-beetle’s existence does not belong in a scientific article; “just the facts, ma’am.”) However, if he lies/misleads about how many beetles he has found to promote his beliefs, ignores any fact that doesn’t support his belief that God is a giant beetle the exact way he would like, or doesn’t really know the latest beetle-research but likes to cite 50-year-old out of context quotes because they better support his beliefs, that’s bad science.

[Triskadecamus]

Navigator,

I will try to explain my objections to Creationism a bit more thoroughly. Please do be aware that the simple fact that most of it is incorrect is not really part of my reason for objecting to it. Lots of things are incorrect, and arouse no particular ire in my views. But Creationism has a lot of other characteristics I find more objectionable than the plethora of misinformation, and illogic upon which it is based. My greatest objections are matters of Christian Faith.

There is a strong temptation to be right. Being right is thought to be very important. Being knowledgeable, and learned, and wise. These are temptations. In the world of material objectivity the desire is very reasonable, and useful. The entire discipline of science is based upon review and verification of correct deduction based on reproducible observation. For scientific study, this temptation is a great strength. It is a way of learning that has brought mankind from huddling around fires to flying to the moon.

But Creationism is not about verification of deductions, and reproducible observations. The fact is that Creationism places God under examination by a flawed process meant to mimic the scientific method, in order to make Creationists seem knowledgeable and wise. It is hubris, and may be blasphemy. And that is the best it ever gets. What usually happens is that under the stress of debate with real science, based on tested logic and easily reproducible observations the made up pseudoscience of Creationism starts to look stupid and foolish. At that point very often, Creationists begin lying. They make up facts, and create false credentials of expertise. They do this to prove they know God better than their opponents.

Now, let us stop and see where we are. A faithful Christian has backed himself into a logical trap. His limited understanding of science has been publicly presented to the world at large as evidence for the truth of the Bible, the existence of God, and the reason for Faith. Then he began lying and making up things which he now claims are part of Christian Faith. I am outraged. The most common outcome I have ever seen is thoughtful people who understand the science concluding that Christian Faith is a matter of believing lies when you are told to by self appointed authorities.

Faith is not based on science. God may run the universe as He desires, and if He didn’t think Moses, and Solomon had the educational prerequisites to study Quantum Mechanics, and Astronomic Cosmology, I can’t say I find His poetry lacking for ignoring those subjects. The realm of faith is not subject to science, and real scientists know it. The faithful must learn it as well, and until they do, they instruct others on faith at their extreme peril. I shall not instruct them on faith, but I will point out that their science is crap, and ask them to take their crap out of the Temple.

I am rather passionate about it. Who would benefit from the dissemination of obviously false data, used in blatantly illogical ways to “support” the doctrines of Christian Faith. Always look to see who benefits. Creationism is not good news, brought by faithful Christians. It is divisive lies, denying the Love of God. Who does that?

Tris

[Telemark]

Agreed. But when confronted with something that is ‘supernatural’ often science discards it because it lacks the tools to examine a phenomenom outside of empirical evidence.

If you could give an example of this it would be most helpful.

[Navigator]

Gaudere said:

We all look at the world from the perspective of our own philosophy and use what we know about the world to bolster/modify our beliefs; as long as a scientist’s philosophy does not interfere with the science he does, I may not think much of his philosophy, but I’ll respect the science.

I’m glad to see you say that. I agree most profoundly with that statement. I think I’ve been consistent in affirming that. My concern is for those on the materialist side of the debate sometimes take their non-supernatural philosophy to the extreme, and become as procrustean as those in the creationism camp.

Summary Remarks: (since I feel I’m not making my points very well)

I’m not equipped to debate the finer points of evolutionary theory. I see hints of the supernatural in the predisposition of this hunk of rock to produce life, in the fine tuning of the universe to the degree that life came to be here, and that it has continued to progress over the ages. I perceive a special hand in the workings of God in my life, as well as others. My personal philosophy is obviously Theistic, and my personal belief of origins probably fall into a Progressive Creation/Intelligent Design bucket. I freely admit that my philosophy colors my perception of that, and feel it is somewhat justified since the empirical evidence of what happened however long ago can be read in different ways, and our theories based on a materialistic scientific paradigm may not be equipped to answer all the questions definitively.

In the end, the question of origins on BOTH sides of the table defaults to a faith based argument.

[Gaudere]

In the end, the question of origins on BOTH sides of the table defaults to a faith based argument.

How so? Evolutionary theory, as we have pointed out repeatedly, simply makes no statements about supernatural influence whatsoever, just like astrophysics, geology, etc.

PS–can you ask your God to quit Intelligently Designing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, as well as all those other little viral nasties that are getting harder and harder to fight?

[Navigator]

How so?

Which starts the merry-go-round all over again.

Materialism is as much a philosophy, or a belief system as an Inteligent Design paradigm. Or a six-day creation paradigm, or a heliocentric paradigm.

On your Prayer request, I’ll submit it for you, but his answer might be something along the lines of ‘REPENT’… but I’m not sure…

[Gaudere]

Materialism is as much a philosophy, or a belief system as an Inteligent Design paradigm.

Perhaps, but you don’t have to be a materialist to be a scientist; it’s just that while you are actually doing science, you don’t say “Well, this canyon could be formed by erosion. OR–maybe it just looks like it was formed by erorsion, and Thor actually put it there! OR–there’s no physical evidence of this, but I’m convinced it was the work of ghosts and nothing will prove otherwise!” and so on. The last two simply don’t belong in the realm of science. You can believe in intelligent design and be a good scientist, just so long as you don’t try to twist the facts to fit your theories or use bad science; I’m afraid I’ve run across a few proponents who are overly fond of the “if I don’t understand it, it means God must have done it” or statistics that appear to have been pulled straight from their ass (and a complete lack of understanding of what statistics can and cannot prove).

On your Prayer request, I’ll submit it for you, but his answer might be something along the lines of ‘REPENT’… but I’m not sure…

Oh, I beg your pardon; I didn’t know only the unrepentant got sick, and that the repentant were unaffected by the pain and deaths of the unrepentant around them.

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by Navigator *
**How so?

Which starts the merry-go-round all over again.

Materialism is as much a philosophy, or a belief system as an Inteligent Design paradigm. Or a six-day creation paradigm, or a heliocentric paradigm.
**

The difference I see here Navigator, is that evolution=materialism is not a true statement. Evolution certainly does not preclude the hand of God stirring the gene pool for his own ends, it merely refrains from ascribing results to him. That’s why you see Triskadecamus and Polycarp arguing on the same side as we atheistic types. Science and materialism are cousins, but not the same thing. Science uses a null hypothesis as a starting point to explain how the universe works, according to the properties of the universe itself, while materialism and theism address the why it does so. Science is purely among the physical realm, and cannot deny or affirm a teleological presence, while materialism deals with the spiritual realm, specifically by denying its existence. They may wear the same clothes and come from the same family, but they are different. You can have theistic scientists and materialist scientists, but not materialist theists.

[Navigator]

we’re pretty much saying the same thing differently, so I’ll get off the merry-go-round now…

Peace.