Creationists - Ignorant or Brainwashed?

Great Debates
101

Randy replied to Satan: *“Anyone opposing Darwins theory is met with ridicule by most of the scientific community and considered enemies of Science.”

Provide some evidence that is actually real. Oh wait you can’t. That is why it’s ridiculed. Because it’s lies. Lies for God.

When Mortimer J. Adler of the University of Chicago, referred to evolution as a “popular myth”, the well known materialist and critic Martin Gardner actually included him in his study of quacks and frauds in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

Dr. Rousas Rushdoony, a Philosopher and Historian said in his book The Mythology of Science, “To question the myth (evolution)or to request proof is to be pillard as a modern heretic or fool”.

Dr. Jerry Bergman has documented that there are thousands of cases of discrimination against creationists-or competent science teachers being fired merely because they taught a “two model aproach” to origins, and or students being expelled from class for challenging the idea that evolution is a fact. The Criterion, Onesimus Publishers 1984

Of course, none of which Satan will believe or take seriously. *

Well, let’s take a look at the facts, as befits our mission here at the Straight Dope.

  • Mortimer J. Adler was a scholar of philosophy and psychology, not a scientist. Nonetheless, he ventured in 1937 to pronounce on scientific definitions concerning the origin of species, arguing that species are immutable in their “essence” and come into being only by “an act of God.” Pronouncements about God and philosophical “essences” are outside the realm of science, and Gardner quite rightly noted this in Fads and Fallacies. That is not the same thing as “ridiculing” somebody or considering them an “enemy of Science” merely for objecting to Darwin’s theories.

  • Rousas Rushdoony is a noted anti-evolutionist and Christian Reconstructionist (i.e., somebody who advocates replacing secular government with Christian theocracy). As an extremely interested party in the evolution/creation debate, his mere unsupported word cannot be taken as evidence that simply “questioning evolution” will result in being “pillor[ie]d”.

  • Jerry Bergman is also a creationist and a well-known member of the Creation Research Society. You do not provide any specific details about the cases you claim he’s documented, but it is quite reasonable that a science teacher who insists on teaching a “two-model approach” (one of the aliases for presenting evolution and creationism as equivalent scientific theories) should be fired. The Supreme Court has held that creation theories, being religiously grounded, are not science and do not belong in science classes; and they survive only by ignoring and distorting vast amounts of scientific evidence. No truly “competent science teacher” would attempt to teach creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution.

So no, Randy, I can’t see that you’ve provided any “real” evidence that merely objecting to problems with the theory of evolution makes one a pariah in modern science. What you’ve provided is some evidence that it is not scientifically acceptable to present creationism as a valid scientific theory—which is quite true, and perfectly justified—plus some evidence that creationists like to portray this as unfair oppression. You’ll have to do better than that if you want to convince anybody except creationists that there really exists an evolutionist institutional tyranny squelching free intellectual inquiry on the subject of origins.

102

Kimstu, you seem to be missing the point of those references. The ideology of the author is totally irrelevant to the facts they present. Satan asked for supporting evidence and Randy has stated that evidence of such exists according to those authors. Saying that you reject the author’s works on logical/factual grounds I can understand, but rejecting the author because of ideological grounds is an ad hominem attack ad as such inappropriate. This is a the same as someone claiming that women are raped at night, having the statement challenged, finding supporting opinion in a book written by a feminist and then having the statistics rejected because of the author’s ideology. It is irrelevant to it being supporting argument when we are talking about something most people can’t conduct a study of themselves. We have to take someone’s word.
The reference to Adler stands as supporting argument that those who question Darwins theory are ridiculed. I’d have to say that most people would agree that being included in a book entitled “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” is evidence of being ridiculed. The author’s ideology is irrelevant. You may dispute the appropriateness or value of his ‘science’ but the cite stands as an example of someone who rejected Darwin’s theory who was ridiculed. It’s going to be a little hard to prove intent if the case is over 50 years old. Added to this you state that “Adler was a scholar of philosophy and psychology, not a scientist”. Of course the definition of psychology is “scientific discipline that studies mental processes and behaviour in humans and other animals”. Adler was a scientist.
Rushdoony’s evidence cannot be dismissed simply because of his philosophical alignment. Anyone who ventures an opinion on this subject is almost certain to have an interest in the subject one way or the other or they wouldn’t bother publishing. If you question his facts fine, but saying we’ve got to reject anyone who has an interest in the issue means we’ll never get any facts on the issue.
Then of course we have my reference to van Kooten “As a scientist, what bothers me most about the debate is the ideological stand that some scientists take regarding any opposing views ¯¯ all opponents are labelled religious fundamentalists”.
I’ve got to agree with Randy that those who question Darwinian evolution are often ridiculed. Not their evidence called into question as befits science but often the beliefs and people themselves, which is inappropriate.

103

Rjung…you missed “as specified in the Bible” or however I phrased it? See John 1:1-14. Quite simply, by the authority that Randy and I share adherence to, Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God, the word that, uttered at the beginning of time, created the Universe. Obviously, that’s a religious opinion – but not just mine; it’s orthodox Christianity’s. Which is why I referred him to it.

Gaspode, nigh every time I bring up a point about the life of Jesus, I get deluged by a series of posts about how all the evidence for His life and work is biased. While I would not object to bringing in biased views, with due allowance made for what their authors’ biases may do to influence the content of those views, I feel that we should have one standard and stick to it. (This is not directed at you or Randy in particular, but an assertion that a level playing field is needed. If the Gospels According to Luke and John are not valid evidence of Jesus’s life because the authors were early Christians and had an ax to grind, should we take Rushdoony, whom the majority of Christians consider needs an L in the middle of his name for clarification’s sake, as anything but a fringe bigot with little useful data to provide? (In case you have not yet noticed, I despise the man – which is probably an unchristian attitude to take, but I’ll consider repenting of it when he decides that Esprix, Freyr, Andygirl, and the others deserve to be allowed to live.)

104

Point taken Polycarp.
If you made an assertion 'Jesus died before he reached middle age" and it was challenged I would have no problem with you using the gospels as a reference. I can then take or leave the information based on how much I respect the source or I can argue the validity of the source based on facts and logic. The same applies in Randy’s case. You or anyone else is free to reject Rushdooney’s views or post logical/factual refutations of his work and I gather this wouldn’t be hard to do. But the point remains an assertion was made and supported by Randy. He has demonstrated that he has reason to believe what he says. So far the only refutation of the support has been ‘the author’s ideology makes him biased’ and that statement itself must be backed up by some sort of fact to be considered more than a personal opinion. Maybe Rushdooney is a warped bigot, but that in itself doesn’t make his ‘facts’ wrong, it just gives me a cause to place less faith in them.
Ideology isn’t the issue. Supporting fact from independent sources and corroborating evidence is.

105

Randy, here’s a thread where I give more evidence for and details of DITWD’s grievous misbehavior.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=61819

-Ben

106

Wouldn’t you agree that the statement you made, that Bergman “should be fired”, and what the Supreme Court says about creation theories qualifies for one opposing evolution being ridiculed and considered and enemy of science?
Polycarp
I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree. Again. I don’t believe that in the passage from Psalms I qouted, that “word” meant Christ. “In the beginning was the Word…”, yes, John is writing about Jesus here.

Someone told me once that the Bible is like an owners manual for a new car. You read about maintenance, how to fix problems, how to avoid them…etc,. The Bible IS like that, but it is so much more. It is powerful, and living. When you read it and memorize it, you are adding life and health and many other benefits to your body and spirit. When you quote it, something happens in the spiritual world. Which is why, I don’t have to tell you, Jesus used it when he was tempted by Satan.

Myself, I can’t believe one word of it was written that was not inspired by God. If that makes me a Literalist, than I will embrace that title wholeheartedly.

107

Randy:

No. The fact is, creation theories are not science. The Supreme Court simply agreed that theories based on faith rather than science do not belong in a science classroom.

Do you disagree that if someone is hired to teach science, but he doesn’t, he should be fired?

108

They are ridiculed because they have no evidence. It’s as though Creationists were standing in a room full of monkeys with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears saying “What? What monkeys? I don’t see any monkeys here. I have a book that says there can’t be monkeys in this room so there are definitely no monkeys!” When faced with such willful blinkered ignorance the proper response is ridicule.

109

Randy: Wouldn’t you agree that the statement you made, that Bergman “should be fired”, and what the Supreme Court says about creation theories qualifies for one opposing evolution being ridiculed and considered and enemy of science?

First, you have to read what I say more carefully. I didn’t say that Bergman should be fired (although I have no evidence for believing that he was fired unjustly): I said that “it is reasonable that creationist science teachers should be fired” (referring to the firings of high school teachers that you claim Bergman’s work documents) if they persist in teaching creationism, which is a religious doctrine, in science class. That is in line with what the Supreme Court ruled concerning the applicability of the principle of separation of church and state to creationist teaching in public schools.

Now, does this constitute criticism of creationists who try to push their views as being somehow “scientific”? It certainly does, and I have lots more where that came from. Does it constitute “ridicule” or “branding as an enemy of science” directed at anybody who ventures to criticize evolutionary theory? Of course not. The point I was making, and which I don’t think either you or Gaspode has validly refuted, is that you’ve provided no evidence of any serious attempt on the part of evolutionists to stifle inquiry that challenges their theories. Yet you still try to insinuate that any criticism or rejection of creationism by scientists constitutes unfair oppression. (Gaspode has a point that rude and ad hominem attacks on creationists are not unknown, but I’m addressing here what I consider the more serious issue of actually suppressing free inquiry.)

If you imagine that fair treatment in science requires all ideas to be given equal official support and listened to with equal respect, I’m afraid you don’t know much about science. There are theories that do a good job of explaining the known facts and can be changed or discarded to adapt to future discoveries, and theories that don’t fulfill those requirements. The second kind is what is known as “bad science”, and there is no reason to treat bad science with respect. If somebody claims that a statement that the world was created supernaturally in a fashion that completely contradicts the geological evidence, based on unquestioning belief in a sacred scripture, should be studied and taught as a scientific hypothesis, that is a ridiculous and unscientific statement and does indeed deserve to be ridiculed. That is not the same thing as ridiculing somebody merely for questioning the validity of evolution.

Nor is it the same thing as ridiculing or disrespecting someone’s religious beliefs. If you say “I believe that the world was created supernaturally in a fashion that completely contradicts the geological evidence, based on unquestioning belief in a sacred scripture,” I’m not going to say “That’s ridiculous and unscientific!” That would be rude and inappropriate. I’m not even going to say “That’s wrong,” because for all I know it might be perfectly right: science doesn’t have any guaranteed access to Absolute Truth, after all. I’ll say something like “That’s nice” or “Well, how about that.” It’s only when you start adding “and I insist that my belief be given a respectful hearing as a scientific hypothesis” that scientists will start opening up a can of whup-ass on you, because it’s about as unscientific a hypothesis as you can get.

Myself, I can’t believe one word of it was written that was not inspired by God.

Well, how about that. That’s nice.

110

You’re right Kimstu, you didn’t say Bergman should be fired. My bad. Also, the way you ended your post was pretty good, I have to admit, although that point was directed at Polycarp.

Mr2001, Kimstu
However, the point I wanted to make was that MANY are of the opinion that, for example, fossil records show a validation of Creation theory. I realize that MANY don’t, and NO I don’t want to start another debate on that, for crying out loud. Please, don’t ask me to PROVE that many are of that opinion. If you don’t believe it, that’s fine. I don’t want to argue about that. I think it’s true, and think there’s enough evidence, that Evolutionists dismiss as ridiculous, to support that Creationism cannot be dismissed as a fable.

Not a very good debate there, I realize, but I don’t feel like doing this anymore. At least not today.

111

Randy:

OK, some people believe that the fossil records agree with creationism… but they believe it in spite of the majority of the scientific world disproving that theory. Someone with his fingers in his ears is not serious about science.

112

Originally posted by rjung

I could say the same thing about athiest and evolutionist. Since they are both brainwashed and shortsighted.

Because they were taught evolution in public school and not creation because the liberal govt didn’t want to give the average kid a chance to question it? I mean y’all evolutionist are hellbent for leather on evolution being taught in school with tax dollars when you know no one really needs this information unless they maybe want to be a doctor or debate evolution on the SDMB.

Just my $0.10 worth on you rjung

You can ask him these questions when you die he will only you one. And now unto the flip side of your argument.

A teacher can’t even bring up the fact that there is another explanation for why are all here other than **BANG[/] the earth was here theory or the Anti Christ’s Law Union comes rushing in to shut the teacher up with the ole standartd seperation of church and state lawsuit gag order.
Goes both ways buddy.

113

“A teacher can’t even bring up the fact that there is another explanation for why are all here other than BANG[/] the earth was here theory or the Anti Christ’s Law Union comes rushing in to shut the teacher up with the ole standartd seperation of church and state lawsuit gag order.”

You mean the explanation that includes Atlas holding up the sky?

114

Facts, can we get some facts here.
The theory of creationism can no more be disproven than the theory of evolution. To disprove it you would have to invent a God-o-meter, calibrate it, then sweep the entire universe and demonstrate that there is no trace of a God ever existing. A little hard to do.
Alll we can do is say that the facts don’t fit the theory, and in the case of creationism that’s going to be imposssible to do becasue if nothing else the theory can say 'He can make whatever facts He likes".
I’d be really interested in seeing a cite for Mr2001’s assertion that creationism has been disproved by science.
Just the use of the word ‘majority’ demonsrates we don’t have scientific ‘proof’. Anyone who asserts that the majority of the scientific world has disproved creationism has got his fingers in an inappropriate orifice.

Oh and Pochacco I’m fairly ceratin you’re a drive-by so I won’t waste much time on you, but the appropriate response in science is NEVER the ridicule of another scientist.

115

Errr, when I was in school, the Presidents were Ronald Reagan and George Bush - liberal government? I also went to school in Alabama - where our conservative Governor hopped around like a monkey in front of the cameras to express his displeasure with evolutionary theory, when all he did was demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of said discipline.

While it would be bad form for me to do so, I must ask - do you feel the same way about proper spelling?

You need to do more reading on the principles of evolution and natural selection - they’re used by many more jobs than simply a doctor. Two specific instances I’ve found interesting are using them to develop a cleaner, more powerful, and more efficient internal combustion engine;and a more effective and efficient crawler-type robot.

I must ask - what do you have against scientific education in a science class?

Which theory is it that says “BANG the earth was here?” I mean, aside from the Christian creation myth which says God wished it into existence.

Well, the teacher WOULD be violating the separation of church and state if a faith-based explanation for existence were put forth in a science class. If you want to discuss it in a religion class, feel free!

Do you not see the difference? Do you think we should also have science teachers telling children the Earth is supported on the back of a tortoise and that “it’s turtles all the way down?”

116

Let’s be entirely fair in what we’re doing here. Certainly you cannot disprove Creationism using the methods of science, because god can always r’ar back and pass a miracle. And, of course, you are not limited to the guy from the Bible in identifying a Creator.

And it occurs to me that evidence of non-natural selective trends is not adequate proof of Evolution (in any of its incarnations). Case in point: given adequate time and motivation on both our parts, I could show you a grove of apple trees growing wild in rural upstate New York that are all identifiably Northern Spies. While it’s probably within the realm of possibility that evolution selected for the Northern Spy variety on the basis of the environmental conditions present, the fact that it is an abandoned farm suggests that the grove is what’s left of the farm’s orchard, which presumably grew Northern Spy trees.

I think the questions at hand are:

  1. What evidence if any is available outside Scripture that tends to indicate to an unbiased observer that any part of the Creationist interpretation of the origin of the universe and of life is the correct one?

  2. What evidence if any is available that disproves phylogenesis occurring according to generally Darwinian principles (as modified in the century-plus since)?

  3. Does the preponderance of available evidence support any one theory?

As a person who believes in God as creator but holds to the operation of natural processes as the mechanism used, I’m inclined to suggest that the answer to 3 is strongly slanted towards Evolution. I don’t doubt that God could have created as a literalist reading of Genesis 1-2 would suggest. But any objective reading of the scientific data suggests something quite the contrary. Given this evidence, then, the Six-Day Creation Process would make him the sort of god I would not consider worth worship – one who, with eternal life or torture on the line, requires a counter-intuitive leap (literally a “leap of faith”) to buy into the “right” data set.

Besides which, the Bible makes clear that He is a minimalist deity: He tends to do the least possible to achieve His ends, letting things work out according to His plan once He’s set them in motion. It would be in keeping with this “style” to create a complex process that carries out His will, rather than a mishmash of fraudulent evidence to mislead the non-elect and such.

117

If you want me to support teaching the Bible’s creation myth in public schools, then let’s be fair and teach the creation myths of every other major culture on the planet.

F’r instance (as others have noted already), the Greeks had Atlas the Titan, who held up the Earth, while the Hindus say that the planet is riding on the back of four elephants and a galactic space turtle. How about the Japanese, who taught that everything was created when the first two Gods (one of each gender) dipped a magic spear into the void of creation and stirred the Earth into forming? Or the ancient Chinese myths about how humanity arose as parasites from the decaying body of the original Earth-titan?

(Apologies for any inaccuracies in the origin summaries above; IANASociologist :slight_smile: )

Oddly enough, I’ve never seen any of the Bible-thumping “bring creationism back into schools” right-wingers (like yourself) support the idea. Instead, they have this bizarre notion that their religion’s story is the only one that should be taught, even when there are several hundred equally valid cultural fairy tales to choose from.

At least evolution is
(a) culturally neutral,
(b) scientifically supported, and
(c) hi Opal! :slight_smile:

118

Randy: However, the point I wanted to make was that MANY are of the opinion that, for example, fossil records show a validation of Creation theory. I realize that MANY don’t, and NO I don’t want to start another debate on that, for crying out loud.

Fine by me, but in that case we have to accept that there is not much debate left here. One of the two chief issues at the root of “creation science” is whether there is enough scientific evidence supporting creationism to make it a defensible scientific theory. (The other chief issue, IMHO, is the question of whether creationism is automatically invalidated as a scientific hypothesis because its fundamental premise is untestable—you can’t do experiments on the activities of God—as well as undiscardable—you can’t stop believing in creationism even if the evidence doesn’t support it, because it’s a requisite of your religious faith.) If the evidence does plausibly support creationism as a valid scientific rival to evolution, then scientists shouldn’t ridicule or dismiss it as unscientific; if it doesn’t, then they should.

I think it’s true, and think there’s enough evidence, that Evolutionists dismiss as ridiculous, to support that Creationism cannot be dismissed as a fable.

Okay, but I think you’re wrong, and so do the overwhelmingly vast majority of experts in the earth and life sciences. If we’re not going to debate the evidence of the fossil record, there’s really nothing to do but leave the discussion here.

119

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Randy *
**quote by Satan
**quote by Randy “Anyone opposing Darwins theory is met with ridicule by most of the scientific community and considered enemies of Science.”

Provide some evidence that is actually real. Oh wait you can’t. That is why it’s ridiculed. Because it’s lies. Lies for God.**

When Mortimer J. Adler of the University of Chicago, referred to evolution as a “popular myth”, the well known materialist and critic Martin Gardner actually included him in his study of quacks and frauds in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science**

If by “materialist” you mean “atheist” you are wrong - Martin Gardner is a philosophical theist, as I recall. As to the claim that anyone who opposes evolution is ridiculed, your evidence is that world-famous philosopher Mortimer Adler of the U of C was criticized by reasonably well-known skeptic Martin Gardner. Big deal… If that’s the best “ridiculing” the world-dominating evolution conspiracy can deal out, what’s the fuss.

Andy

120

**

What subjects do you feel should be taught in school? Could you outline the ideal curriculum for us?

**

WB, you really should before posting. From now on I we should write like WB so he what it’s like ok?
(I would be nicer, but it’s not like we haven’t begged you to proofread a hundred times before, WB.)

-Ben