Gaspode, if you were somehow able to disprove scientifically that Evolution(I refuse to use the fundie term Darwinian evolution) best fit the known facts, all you would have established is a disproving of Evolution.
You would NOT have proven anything Creationism-wise.
I find that I can read through a large percentage of works about Evolution and not find anything about disproving Creationism, but the majority of books on Creationism devote a large part of the time trying to disprove Evolution through the use of non-peer reviewed studies and Bible verses.
For the benefit of Satan (and anyone else who may have missed it), the thread Evolution vs. Ooops Creationism contains some explorations of Gaspode’s views on these matters.
I don’t feel the qustion is really that bad. Whenever an evolution thread starts the posts climb like mad and creationism i stamped out. If we pretend like we allow it here, percentagewise, on the SDMB we’re lying to ourselves.
I think i is a matter of “brainwashed” but that term is a little bit more loaded than I would like. They are of the opinion that the peopl who told them this stuff wouldn’t lie, so it must be right. Raised in such an environment would be brainwashing. Ignorance is the effect.
I still feel the terms are a bit more loaded than they need to be, though, having known a few creationists who had a genuine interest in discussion. They were brainwashed, not ignorant.
To answer the OP, here we have a creationist who is simply dishonest. Despite Gaspode’s claims to know an enormous amount about the evidence, in actual practice, when confronted by a knowledgeable (and handsome) person such as myself, he resorted to the time honored creationist techniques of distortion, obfuscation, and the ad hominem. When I pointed out what he was doing, and backed my accusations of dishonesty with evidence, he hightailed it.
Get the whole story at:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52991
More broadly, my experience has been that creationists are quite ignorant, and dishonest to the extent that they cannot admit when they are wrong. In general they don’t seem to make up facts about fossils (they let Gish and Hovind do that for them) but oftentimes they will gladly weasel and lie about their past statements from earlier in the discussion.
-Ben
three cheers for ben.
I think your missing the point of my posts and possibly the OP entirely Czarcasm
I have no interest whatsoever in disproving evolution, and have never anywhere suggested that I could or would do so. Simply that the ‘mountains of evidence’ don’t convince anywhere near everybody. The Op makes no reference to proving anything one way or the other, merely postulates as to why people believe as they do. I don’t quite know why you believe that the debate requires anything to be proved or disproved, certainly I never brought it up.
The OP allowed two options for those who believe in creationism: Ignorant or Brainwashed. If ‘mainstream legitimate scientists’, as Satan refers to them, fail to accept any given theory then simply failing to accept the ‘mountains of evidence’ can be demonstrated not to be linked to either ignorance or brainwashing. Therefore the OP has a serious logical error that makes further discussion pointless. There must be a third option.
I’ve said this a couple of times above, I don’t know what gave you the impression I wanted to debate creationism or disprove evolution.
As for ‘Darwinian evolution’ being a fundie term, I still see the terms ‘Darwinian’ ‘Darwinism’ and ‘neo-Darwinian’ in scientific journals on a regular basis so I suspect that is just your opinion. While I respect your right to have an opinion I hardly think that maintaining that ‘Darwinian evolution is a fundie term’ is contributing much to the fight against ignorance. I suggest you have a look at the following journal articles to see the term used by what I can only assume to be ‘non-fundie’ scientists.
Rinkevich B. A critical approach to the definition of Darwinian units of selection. Biological Bulletin. 199(3):231-240, 2000 Dec.
Thornhill RH. Ussery DW. A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 203(2):111-116, 2000 Mar 21.
Bernardi G. The compositional evolution of vertebrate genomes. Gene. 259(1-2 Special Issue SI):31-43, 2000 Dec 23.
Abstract.
This review will present first the intragenomic shifts, the ‘major shifts’ and the ‘minor shift’, and then the ‘whole-genome’, or ‘horizontal’, shift. In each case, the shifts were preceded and followed by a conservative mode of evolution. This review expands on a previous one [Bernardi, Gene 241 (2000) 3-17], and summarizes the evidence that the changes of the compositional patterns of the genome and their maintenance are controlled by Darwinian natural selection.
If, like Satan, you can’t provide a cite that Darwinian evolution is in fact a ‘fundie term’ or in some way antiquated then the comment should probably be retracted in keeping with the spirit of the board.
Ben
Where exactly have I claimed to know an enormous amount about the evidence? If you can provide me of an example of where I have done this then you may not look like a hypocrite for accusing m of dishonesty.
As for ‘hightailing it’, if you could be bothered to check my past posts (and personally I could understand why you wouldn’t bother) you’ll find that I posted nothing for some time after this thread. Far from hightailing it I was doing field work for a few weeks and simply forgot about the thread.
I’m more than happy to continue it if you like, just say the word. Actually thanks for reminding me about it. But to suggest that I hightailed it without considering that maybe arguing with you isn’t the most important thing in my life is a little short-sighted
[QUOTE]
Well, earlier in this thread, you said…
I can only conclude two things, either:
(1) You are indeed claiming to know a great deal about the “enormous amount of evidence,” and so that’s why you’re staking your education et al. against Satan’s, or
(2) You are staking your education, etc. against Satan’s because you are a masochist, and you like being ridiculed.
(3) Hi Opal!
So which is it?
Quix
I believe in a literal creation as given in the first chapter of the first Book of the Bible. I believe that since none of us were around to see the creation of the world this subject is determined by faith. I put faith in God. I assume God is and was and will be. I know some will point out the foolishness of my assumption that God exists and I reply that the entire debate of evolution and creation isn’t fair. I am not allowed to assume God exists, but evolutionists are allowed to assume two things: force and matter. And then the more atheistic evols’ can’t tell us where force and matter came from and whatset them in motion or why they were set in motion. I’m ridiculed for saying that God created us just like He told us, yet, those who reject that theory believe in the Big Bang Theory. (Not all, but many.) The evolutionists say that the universe started out as nothing and then the Big Bang happened. In other words, Nothing exploded and Nothing happened. Regardless of what you believe about the creation of the planet, your opinion is based on a theory that can’t be proven. No one has ever seen a talking snake nor a half monkey/man. This is a matter of faith. I stand by mine proudly. So which am I: ignorant or brainwashed.
How about:
- Ignorant
- Brainwashed
- Both
- Neither
Umm, none of the above.
I never staked my education against Satan’s.
Whatever gave you the idea that I did?
What a strange post.
jab1
Well said.
Actually, no one seriously attempting to discuss the merits of evolution would call you foolish for your assumption. Evolution has nothing at all to do with proving whether or not God exists; it simply attempts to determine the principles by which change, in both living and non-living things, occurs over time. That things change over time is beyond doubt, but are there rules that determine how they change? The answer is, yes, there appear to be rules. Are these rules consistent over all points in time that we can measure? The answer is, yes, they appear to be, except perhaps for an extremely short period at the beginning of time. If you wish, you can ask the question: Has God physically intervened in the course of these changes? The answer would appear to be no, but even if this is the case, it does not mean that God does not exist.
Again, you may assume whatever you want to about the existence of God, as the presence or absence of a God has no particular relevance to evolutionary theory.
It would be closer to the truth to say that, according to current interpretations, everything inflated and everything else happened. For various theoretical reasons, time begins at the point of inflation, and it is not yet possible to determine in any meaningful way what occurred before there was a dimension of time.
If you want to know more about current cosmological theory, I can highly recommend the book The Five Ages of the Universe, by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin. It is an easy read and describes the rather extraordinary complexity of the universe in a highly lucid manner.
This, Jenkinsfan, is why you could be called ignorant, although your ignorance may not be willful. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that suggests that talking snakes or man-monkeys should exist; in fact, evolution specifically excludes such things from occurring, (well, talking snakes may evolve eventually, but that’s for later). If you have never bothered to try and study evolutionary theory, however, there is no reason why you should know this.
To sum up, the only significant point where evolution and the Bible cross paths is in Genesis; evolution allows little possibility that the major events in Genesis occurred as decribed, but to say that this denies the existence of God is as silly as saying that a flat tire denies the existence of an automobile.
j-fan: So which am I: ignorant or brainwashed.
Well, I’ll have to go with somewhat ignorant (though a nice chap anyway :)) and somewhat confused. Here’s where I think those characteristics are manifesting themselves:
*I believe in a literal creation as given in the first chapter of the first Book of the Bible. I believe that since none of us were around to see the creation of the world this subject is determined by faith. I put faith in God. I assume God is and was and will be. *
Neither ignorant nor brainwashed, IMHO: your faith is your faith, just as mine is mine.
I know some will point out the foolishness of my assumption that God exists
Well, I don’t think that’s appropriate of them: it’s a matter of faith, after all, and it is not respectful to describe anybody’s faith as “foolish”.
and I reply that the entire debate of evolution and creation isn’t fair. I am not allowed to assume God exists, but evolutionists are allowed to assume two things: force and matter.
Ah! But you see, the difference there is the sort of things you’re assuming and what you’re assuming them for. If you’re talking about scientific hypotheses, you can start out with whatever assumptions seem best to you—aether, phlogiston, impressed force, whatever—but they have to be purely material and consistently subject to physical laws. Those are the ground rules of the game of science. It doesn’t permit you to assume an entity who is not subject to physical laws—who can work a miracle and change the processes of nature whenever He pleases, and whose existence you will never discard in favor of a new hypothesis no matter what the evidence says. Nobody is saying you can’t structure your religious beliefs around such an assumption, but you can’t structure scientific theories around it.
See, that’s what they mean when they talk about science being “godless” or “atheistic”—it is atheistic in the best sense of the term (however paradoxical that may sound! :)), the same way football is, say. Now I don’t mean to shock you: I don’t say football promotes atheism or that football players are atheists, any more than science and scientists can be so described. But football, like science, is a game that must be played with reference only to natural physical phenomena, not by deliberately invoking God. No coach tells his players “Okay, our strategy when they get to our five-yard line will be to stand still and do nothing, because it’s God’s job to save them from scoring a goal.” No coach would tell the ref after the other team scores “I’m sorry, ref, but that wasn’t a legitimate goal and our side will not accept it, because God did not want them to gain those points.” Football players have to leave God out of the picture when they’re dealing with the game, and so do scientists. That doesn’t mean that football players can’t personally rely on their faith in God, just as many scientists do. But they’re not allowed to use God as a solution instead of working within the rules of the game. Do you see the difference?
And then the more atheistic evols’ can’t tell us where force and matter came from and whatset them in motion or why they were set in motion.
Sure. Nobody says that scientific assumptions have to be flawless or free from unexplained problems that still puzzle us. The only criterion is that they have to abide by the rules of the game: no immaterial or supernatural entities, and no unshakable faith. We use the concepts of force and matter, despite all the imperfectly understood aspects of them, because they work in our construction of detailed, quantitative theories that closely match experimental evidence. If we ever find our concept of “force” or “matter” not properly predicting the physical behavior that we see in nature, we throw it out or change it (and indeed, we’ve often made such changes). But as soon as you say that your faith in God is unshakable and you will not change your beliefs----tweeeeeeeeet!* You’re not doing science.
I’m ridiculed for saying that God created us just like He told us,
No you’re not, not unless you try to call that a scientific hypothesis.
yet, those who reject that theory believe in the Big Bang Theory. (Not all, but many.) The evolutionists say that the universe started out as nothing and then the Big Bang happened. In other words, Nothing exploded and Nothing happened.
Neato. Reread what I said above about scientific assumptions not being disqualified just because they’re not perfectly understood.
Regardless of what you believe about the creation of the planet, your opinion is based on a theory that can’t be proven.
No scientific theory can ever be fully proven: there may always be a set of as-yet unencountered facts that will require us to change the theory or develop a whole new one. If we speak of “proven” to mean being successful at modeling the currently known evidence, however, the theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection is one of the most solidly “proven” theories there is.
No one has ever seen a talking snake nor a half monkey/man.
If we did see a talking snake, the ideas of creationists would still not be science, for the reasons given above. If we never see a “half monkey/man” (and if you mean by that inaccurate phrase an exemplar of one of the ancient common ancestors of men and monkeys that evolution theory hypothesizes, then we’ve seen several of their skeletons, at least!), the theory of evolution will still be science, even if new evidence will later require us to change or discard it in favor of a better theory.
This is a matter of faith. I stand by mine proudly.
Good, that is the right way to approach religious faith, IMHO. It is the wrong way to approach the practice of science.
…but on the other hand, I am compelled to leave myself open to accusations from the creationist side of the gallery by stating that evolutionary theory is the best current explanation for the physical evidence we have in hand.
If the evidence does not support your theory, there is:[list=1][li]Something wrong with your theory, or[/li][li]something wrong with your understanding of the theory or,[/li][li]something wrong with your evidence or,[/li][li]something wrong with your understanding of your evidence.[/list=1]I don’t subscribe to the theory that evidence of evolution disproves the existence of G-d. Neither do I subscribe to the theory that Creation rules out evolution as part of that creation.[/li]
Belief in G-d is not functionally equivalent to brain damage. What’s so hard to understand about that?
~~Baloo
Just to set the record straight, I have admitted to the occasional bout of ignorance from time to time, but I am not now, nor have I ever been brainwashed!
Okay. Maybe once. Twice tops.
~~Baloo
Well, the evidence for abiogenesis is not as strong as you seem to think. Some scientists beleive in the “seed” theory, ie life did not originate on earth, but was “seeded” from space. If there is enough evidence to make this group of experts a legit minority, the evidence for abiogeneis can’t be all that strong.
However, the evidence cannot be argued that the Earth is very old, Life eveoled, and evolution itself is a FACT, not a “theory” as solid as “the Earth goes around the Sun”. However, the MECHANISM for Evolution is highly debated.
There are two legit “creationist” agruements. The first is the “old earth” theory. That G-d created the Earth, etc- with all the evidence already in place to show the Earth was about the age scientists say it is- ie with dino fossils already fossilized, etc. There can be no refutation to this. Some have attacked it by insulting it- by saying “Why would G-d lie to us?”- but that is anwered by the concept of “free will”.
The next "creationist’ theory that has credance is the “guided evolution” theory. G-d (or gods) created the Big bang, etc- and G-d or (gods) gave the primordial slime that “small spark” that made it come alive, along with “nudges” here & there, especially when it came time for Man. This would explain some few discrepencies.
The folks who do not like either of the two “creation theories” above- then must stoop to such silliness as casting doubt upon the solid evidence that exists. Jenkinsfan- try one of the above- it will lend some credence to your arguements
But Daniel, both of those arguments (modified “last-Thursdayism” and divinely guided evolution) still do not qualify as science. Creationists get away with them more easily in scientific discussion because they don’t actually conflict with existing scientific theory as much as “young-earth” assumptions and similar creationist arguments do. Nonetheless, as soon as you bring in a supernatural non-material cause to attempt to explain material facts—tweeeeeeeeeet! Not science.
-
They do not conflict at all. If you think they do- show me the conflict.
-
And that is why it is “faith” not “science”. A belief in faith is not ignorance- altho a discarding of scientific evidence could be.
Kimstuthe way I read what DITWD is saying is that they don’t need to be science to oppose the OP. They just need to demonstrate that ignorance and/or brainwashing is not a pre-requisite for belief in them.
I can’t beleive that science is the only thought system that precludes ignorance and brainwashing, and that sociologists, archaeologists, philosophers, theologists and others who cannot apply science to all their data and hypotheses are ignorant or brainwashed.
That’s just too broad a statement for my narrow little mind to accept.
Just to toss in my $0.05 on the OP:
I vote for ignorant and brainwashed. After all, isn’t the whole point of Sunday School to brainwash impressionable youngsters that (1) the stuff in the Bible is true, and (2) don’t question #1?
(Then, inevitably, some smart kid asks a stumper like “Can God create a rock that he can’t lift?” or “If God loves us, why does He allow terrible things to happen to his followers?” And the adults have to dodge the answer and obfusicate the issue until the kid learns that questioning and logical reasoning are unwelcome…)
Emphasis by me:
Gaspode, I didn’t ask about any alternative theories, I want to see this mountain of evidence you know of that opposes evolution. Your entire argument hinges on it.
The OP supposes that since the entire weight of known evidence directly supports evolution, those who reject it are either ignorant or brainwashed. Your reply seems to be that there are people, perhaps including yourself, who object to evolution strictly on an evidentiary basis. Since I consider this analagous to someone claiming the earth is flat due to their examination of the available evidence, I am challenging you to support your assertion. If you cannot, your entire argument falters.
Replace “creationists” with “flat-earthers” and perhaps you can see the reasoning behind the OP.